Ratings vs Norwich

[Bus-Conductor]

Dier only received the ball 4 times but made 7 passes, that is an incredible skill.

You don't only take possession of the ball by receiving it from a team mate.

 

[Supersi32]

The game was won in the first half, yes 2nd half Norwich had more of the ball which we looked comfortable with as the reality was they offered very little threat, we coasted through the 2nd half picking them off on the break, an all round comfortable and commanding away win...

 

[mpickard2087]

I don't think what @Bus-Conductor said was all that controversial. We didn't play a very good second half at all in my opinion. For me we came out from the start of the half in 'conserve energy' mode (maybe understandably given it was a midweek game), and probably mentally had lifted off a bit. Less movement, fewer people wanted the ball, fewer passes strung together, opposition gains a foothold and it looks a bit scrappy from our perspective.

It isn't the first time its happened either, I don't see why that cant be made a point of - sometimes it doesn't really matter (last nights game), other times the opposition are able to punish you (Stoke for instance). Personally I think it would be nice to see us keep the ball a bit more if we have decided we are happy with what we have got from the game, not surrender it.

 

[StockSpur]

bit dicey playing that way, but Norwich didnt offer anything and we took another goal at the end, best game of the season so far.

 

[JimmyG2]

I don't really want my creatives
especially if they are 'lightweight'
that's you Erikson and Carroll: eat more!
charging about tackling.
Get into some space
as far away as possible from the opposition
and do something exciting with the ball.
Leave the tackling to the Diers of this world.
Your job description does not include
putting yourself in danger.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I don't really want my creatives
especially if they are 'lightweight'
that's you Erikson and Carroll: eat more!
charging about tackling.
Get into some space
as far away as possible from the opposition
and do something exciting with the ball.
Leave the tackling to the Diers of this world.
Your job description does not include
putting yourself in danger.

Got to say JG, I fundamentally disagree with this concept. It is the kind of philosophy that has been the essence of Spursyness for decades. I think whatever we are achieving now under Poch it's got a lot to do with the fact that we have added a collective work ethic to some talent.

 

[Borks]

It's Eriksen ffs, not Erikson, Ericksen, Erikkssen or any other terrible spelling.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

One thing that arisen from the past four away wins is that we can start to adjust our sense of impending doom when a less talented team has a period of 15-30 minutes when they are in control. Many of us are acting as if a performance that contains that kind of period is inadequate and that players who make individual errors during that period are "poor", but what we are finding when the final whistle goes is that we haven't conceded, or have conceded one consolation goal. In the past four matches we have conceded 2 goals and both have been scored by Spurs players.

It's just not realistic to expect total control of tempo, territory and possession for 90 minutes. It happens occasionally, but those matches represent an unrealistic standard. The adjustment is required because past Spurs teams, even the good ones, would routinely cough up a goal, the lead and then the points when subjected to any sustained pressure. So we overreact to these passages of play, because we haven't got used to the concept that we have a miserly, organised and resourceful defence that can absorb pressure.

Absorbing pressure is a key part of the game. Ask a Chelsea supporter. It knackers and frustrates the opposition and causes them to take risks, which open up opportunities such as the one from which Kane scored the third goal last night, as well as the one from which he struck the inside of the post.

All season, we have been able to absorb pressure and the only times it has cost us are against Newcastle and Leicester, when we did not have a 2+ goal lead. Stoke was too early in the season to count, because we hadn't yet sorted out our style. It's an unfamiliar feeling for the supporters and ratings threads would achieve a better approximation of reality if people would treat these periods as a normal part of how a good team has to play, rather than combing through them for individual errors and using them to downgrade the merits of a 0-3 away win.

 

[whitesocks]

Rimmer?
Acting Senior Officer Rimmer I think you mean.

I don't think what @Bus-Conductor said was all that controversial. We didn't play a very good second half at all in my opinion. For me we came out from the start of the half in 'conserve energy' mode (maybe understandably given it was a midweek game), and probably mentally had lifted off a bit. Less movement, fewer people wanted the ball, fewer passes strung together, opposition gains a foothold and it looks a bit scrappy from our perspective.

It isn't the first time its happened either, I don't see why that cant be made a point of - sometimes it doesn't really matter (last nights game), other times the opposition are able to punish you (Stoke for instance). Personally I think it would be nice to see us keep the ball a bit more if we have decided we are happy with what we have got from the game, not surrender it.

Once we get a comfortable lead, the full backs no longer bomb-on - they stop at the halfway line at best.
We therefore concede midfield - we just dont have the numbers - and then play on the break.
It seems to work.

Also perhaps with midfield being by-passed, this is why Dier (and Bentaleb) often just disappear from the games.

Having said that Dier had a quiet game overall. To my eyes, he played more to the left for some reason and did not adapt. Defenders have the luxury of just sticking to their favoured side, but midfielders have to be more flexible. Something to watch for perhaps.

 

[thfc12]

I don't think what @Bus-Conductor said was all that controversial. We didn't play a very good second half at all in my opinion. For me we came out from the start of the half in 'conserve energy' mode (maybe understandably given it was a midweek game), and probably mentally had lifted off a bit. Less movement, fewer people wanted the ball, fewer passes strung together, opposition gains a foothold and it looks a bit scrappy from our perspective.

It isn't the first time its happened either, I don't see why that cant be made a point of - sometimes it doesn't really matter (last nights game), other times the opposition are able to punish you (Stoke for instance). Personally I think it would be nice to see us keep the ball a bit more if we have decided we are happy with what we have got from the game, not surrender it.

In the second half we came out to kill that game off and we did exactly that with incredible maturity. If we had come out all guns blazing and ended up drawing that game you would be saying that we shouldn't have been so reckless and immature. Can't have it both ways.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

One thing that arisen from the past four away wins is that we can start to adjust our sense of impending doom when a less talented team has a period of 15-30 minutes when they are in control. Many of us are acting as if a performance that contains that kind of period is inadequate and that players who make individual errors during that period are "poor", but what we are finding when the final whistle goes is that we haven't conceded, or have conceded one consolation goal. In the past four matches we have conceded 2 goals and both have been scored by Spurs players.

It's just not realistic to expect total control of tempo, territory and possession for 90 minutes. It happens occasionally, but those matches represent an unrealistic standard. The adjustment is required because past Spurs teams, even the good ones, would routinely cough up a goal, the lead and then the points when subjected to any sustained pressure. So we overreact to these passages of play, because we haven't got used to the concept that we have a miserly, organised and resourceful defence that can absorb pressure.

Absorbing pressure is a key part of the game. Ask a Chelsea supporter. It knackers and frustrates the opposition and causes them to take risks, which open up opportunities such as the one from which Kane scored the third goal last night, as well as the one from which he struck the inside of the post.

All season, we have been able to absorb pressure and the only times it has cost us are against Newcastle and Leicester, when we did not have a 2+ goal lead. Stoke was too early in the season to count, because we hadn't yet sorted out our style. It's an unfamiliar feeling for the supporters and ratings threads would achieve a better approximation of reality if people would treat these periods as a normal part of how a good team has to play, rather than combing through them for individual errors and using them to downgrade the merits of a 0-3 away win.

I haven't checked in the last month or so, but up until christmas no team had conceded more points from winning positions than us. I think we have probably improved that now and have possibly been superseded by Everton for that dubious honour, but lets not pretend the way we have continually operated in phases of games, particularly when sitting on leads has been perfect or even "good" a lot of the time.

We were exceedingly lucky not to concede against Watford, Palace and Norwich and did concede against Leicester in those phases of recent matches and they aren't the best teams we'll face, prior to christmas we conceded leads in those phases (Stoke, Leicester twice, Arsenal, West Brom, Newcastle - and Euro games)

As I said, a bit of pragmatism is great, but completely shelling it and players hiding from the ball and riding your luck is not pragmatism and in this league it can and will frequently get punished and in the first half of the season it was in our case.

Lets by all means applaud what is good about this team but lets not pretend everything is.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

In the second half we came out to kill that game off and we did exactly that with incredible maturity. If we had come out all guns blazing and ended up drawing that game you would be saying that we shouldn't have been so reckless and immature. Can't have it both ways.

But this is it, there isn't just two modes 1. All guns blazing 2. Custers last stand.

We can manage phases where we need to be pragmatic better than we have and did last night.

 

[Mr Pink]

One thing that arisen from the past four away wins is that we can start to adjust our sense of impending doom when a less talented team has a period of 15-30 minutes when they are in control. Many of us are acting as if a performance that contains that kind of period is inadequate and that players who make individual errors during that period are "poor", but what we are finding when the final whistle goes is that we haven't conceded, or have conceded one consolation goal. In the past four matches we have conceded 2 goals and both have been scored by Spurs players.

It's just not realistic to expect total control of tempo, territory and possession for 90 minutes. It happens occasionally, but those matches represent an unrealistic standard. The adjustment is required because past Spurs teams, even the good ones, would routinely cough up a goal, the lead and then the points when subjected to any sustained pressure. So we overreact to these passages of play, because we haven't got used to the concept that we have a miserly, organised and resourceful defence that can absorb pressure.

Absorbing pressure is a key part of the game. Ask a Chelsea supporter. It knackers and frustrates the opposition and causes them to take risks, which open up opportunities such as the one from which Kane scored the third goal last night, as well as the one from which he struck the inside of the post.

All season, we have been able to absorb pressure and the only times it has cost us are against Newcastle and Leicester, when we did not have a 2+ goal lead. Stoke was too early in the season to count, because we hadn't yet sorted out our style. It's an unfamiliar feeling for the supporters and ratings threads would achieve a better approximation of reality if people would treat these periods as a normal part of how a good team has to play, rather than combing through them for individual errors and using them to downgrade the merits of a 0-3 away win.

Good post.

I know we surrendered some possession in the second half last night but its inevitable that the opposition will have spells and exert pressure at some point - especially losing at home in front of their own fans.

I think we could of tried to respond a little better in terms of trying to regain some control more quickly but like you say its not always a case of getting what you want when the opposition are always in the equation.

At the end of the day it was a very good win away from home and some need to accept that we'll have periods of pressure to deal with in games at this level - particularly away from home.

The net result was we won and actually limited Norwich to very little, even if they're not the most threatening team in the League.

 

[thfc12]

But this is it, there isn't just two modes 1. All guns blazing 2. Custers last stand.

We can manage phases where we need to be pragmatic better than we have and did last night.

Not really. The second half was us doing what all good teams do which is soaking up pressure to make sure we win.

 

[mpickard2087]

In the second half we came out to kill that game off and we did exactly that with incredible maturity. If we had come out all guns blazing and ended up drawing that game you would be saying that we shouldn't have been so reckless and immature. Can't have it both ways.

Where did I say come out all guns blazing? I just felt (and as I said, not for the first game) I would prefer us to keep the ball a bit better rather than drop off and back ourselves to see the game out.

 

[Supersi32]

I haven't checked in the last month or so, but up until christmas no team had conceded more points from winning positions than us. I think we have probably improved that now and have possibly been superseded by Everton for that dubious honour, but lets not pretend the way we have continually operated in phases of games, particularly when sitting on leads has been perfect or even "good" a lot of the time.

We were exceedingly lucky not to concede against Watford, Palace and Norwich and did concede against Leicester in those phases of recent matches and they aren't the best teams we'll face, prior to christmas we conceded leads in those phases (Stoke, Leicester twice, Arsenal, West Brom, Newcastle - and Euro games)

As I said, a bit of pragmatism is great, but completely shelling it and players hiding from the ball and riding your luck is not pragmatism and in this league it can and will frequently get punished and in the first half of the season it was in our case.

Lets by all means applaud what is good about this team but lets not pretend everything is.

Another interesting quirk is that no team has gained more points from losing positions this season than us....14 points I believe

 

[dricha1]

Can't believe some of the moaning on here about recent performances. Has any team dominated a game for 90 minutes? It's the nature of the Premier League. City cough up chances for the opposition as do Arsenal, United, Liverpool et al.

I honestly think some of you wouldn't be happy unless the end of game stats read something like this;


Spurs. Opposition
Goals. 8. 0
Poss. 100%. 0%
Shots. 22. 0
On target. 18. 0
Touch in opp 1/2. 343. 0

 

[carpediem991]

Performance wise BC is spot on imo. Yes the result is great and so no need to make a big story about it, but football is a game of momentum. It certainly changed, we allowed Norwich to create some chances and put ourselves into pressure without any need.
We were lucky there finishing was quite useless and only Naismith was a real threat. But how often we concede these goals and kick the points away?
We can not only rate a game by the result, you have to look at the details and negatives in the winning games too. Only then you can continue to improve.

 

[THFCSPURS19]

I wish we could return to the Sherwood days where we got beaten 2-1 by Norwich rather than winning 0-3.

 

[L-man]

I wish we could return to the Sherwood days where we got beaten 2-1 by Norwich rather than winning 0-3.

Same, at least we'd actually win 2-1 at Old Trafford than losing 1-0 under this fraudster