It simply can't be all ...

[werty]

We played well for 20 minutes against Wigan. As soon as we went 2-0, Wigan pretty much dominated.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Yes. But the second half negated it, as many people have tried to tell you.

You're right about Swansea, that's what I said.

The second half didn't negate it at all. Wigan came out and gave it go, 2-0 down, got one back got a man sent off and died again. They had 1 shot on target, 4 in total, we had 6/12, And we still ended up with 65% possession and an away win. Bar 10/15 minutes it was a damn good away performance and a result, which hardly suggests the tactics were wrong or could be remotely described in general terms as an "awful" performance.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Also, Swansea got worse after we changed to 442 (whilst winning) from 433/4231.

 

[TheGreenLily]

Your right Stoof it cant be all harry's fault.

I blame the tea lady for not giving two sugars.

 

[Spurs_Bear]

The second half didn't negate it at all. Wigan came out and gave it go, 2-0 down, got one back got a man sent off and died again. They had 1 shot on target, 4 in total, we had 6/12, And we still ended up with 65% possession and an away win. Bar 10/15 minutes it was a damn good away performance and a result, which hardly suggests the tactics were wrong or could be remotely described in general terms as an "awful" performance.

Deja vous. We were shite. Get over it BC. We're allowed to play badly and win, even with a 4231.

 

[werty]

Good performance/result

Chelsea a (433) Draw, deserved better.
Bolton h (4231) good win
Swansea h (4231) great win
Sunderland a (433) well earned draw at tough place. 71% possession.

Another simplistic way of looking at those games is:

Chelsea (a) Score whole playing 433 = 0-0
Bolton (H) Score while playing 4231 = 0-0
Swansea (h) Score while playing 4231 = 1-1
Sunderland (a) Score while playing 4231 = 0-0

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Another simplistic way of looking at those games is:

Chelsea (a) Score whole playing 433 = 0-0
Bolton (H) Score while playing 4231 = 0-0
Swansea (h) Score while playing 4231 = 1-1
Sunderland (a) Score while playing 4231 = 0-0

So we're undefeated !

 

[werty]

Touché!

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Deja vous. We were shite. Get over it BC. We're allowed to play badly and win, even with a 4231.

No we were brilliant, get over it SB. We are allowed to dominate the ball, make shit loads of chances and limit the opposition to 1, even with 4231.

 

[Partizan]

BC is absolutely spot on the analysis of the Wigan away performance. First half we were superb and got a two goal advantage, we took the foot of the gas and they went after us for about 20 minutes. Then when we were just starting to get a grip of the game once again, Bale got Gohouri sent off and after that we pretty much snuffed them out. So overall it was a very positive performance.

Where we used that system or something similar to it where we didn't look great was at Liverpool and at home to Chelsea. Although against Chelsea they were playing better than us in the final 20 minutes of the first half, it was when Redknapp decided to substitute VDV with Pavlyuchenko that damaged our chances of getting control back from the game.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I'm not saying the formation and it's tactical ramifications is everything. We have played superbly in different formations at different times this season. But because of the deficiencies in the coached ethos - work rate, pressing, closing, tracking - the 4231/433 puts a better balance of those skills into our make up.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

BC is absolutely spot on the analysis of the Wigan away performance. First half we were superb and got a two goal advantage, we took the foot of the gas and they went after us for about 20 minutes. Then when we were just starting to get a grip of the game once again, Bale got Gohouri sent off and after that we pretty much snuffed them out. So overall it was a very positive performance.

Where we used that system or something similar to it where we didn't look great was at Liverpool and at home to Chelsea. Although against Chelsea they were playing better than us in the final 20 minutes of the first half, it was when Redknapp decided to substitute VDV with Pavlyuchenko that damaged our chances of getting control back from the game.

Liverpool away was a 4411, and Chelsea we were great for the first 20-25 minutes and OK for the first half, then we changed to 442 for the second half and they got well on top.

 

[Mr Pink]

Another simplistic way of looking at those games is:

Chelsea (a) Score whole playing 433 = 0-0
Bolton (H) Score while playing 4231 = 0-0
Swansea (h) Score while playing 4231 = 1-1
Sunderland (a) Score while playing 4231 = 0-0

Hold on a minute though, Bolton at home we created more than enough chances to win five games let a lone one before changes were made. And by the way when Defoe came on, we won a corner nearly straight away and scored - it had nothing to do with breaking the deadlock. They then had to come out and it opened up even more.

According to Harry we kept the same system going against Swansea, and we were well unlucky not to beat Chelsea. No matter what we have looked solid, the cornerstone for most top sides, and apart from the Sunderland game we were creating chances.

Over the long term I guarantee that our quality would come through in this set up with the correct application from a collective point of view.

 

[werty]

Hold on a minute though, Bolton at home we created more than enough chances to win five games let a lone one before changes were made. And by the way when Defoe came on, we won a corner nearly straight away and scored - it had nothing to do with the breaking the deadlock. They then had to come out and it opened up even more.

According to Harry we kept the same system going against Swansea, and we were well unlucky not to beat Chelsea. No matter what we have looked solid, the cornerstone for most top sides, and apart from the Sunderland game we were creating chances.

Over the long term I guarantee that our quality would come through in this set up with the correct application from a collective point of view.

I did say it was simplistic .

I agree with Bolton, but we did the same when we played 442 against them earlier in the season. Agree with Chelsea too, but I thought we were the better team for 70 odd minutes yesterday (went into a more detailed in a post earlier in this thread). Don't agree with Swansea though. Other than the goal we didn't create much that I can remember until we changed formation. Against Sunderland we didn't look like getting a shot on target, never-mind scoring. Our best and probably only chance from open play came when we changed formation. And considering Sunderland left in 4 to a goal-shy Everton it doesn't say much for our attacking play.

 

[Mr Pink]

I did say it was simplistic .

I agree with Bolton, but we did the same when we played 442 against them earlier in the season. Agree with Chelsea too, but I thought we were the better team for 70 odd minutes yesterday (went into a more detailed in a post earlier in this thread). Don't agree with Swansea though. Other than the goal we didn't create much that I can remember until we changed formation. Against Sunderland we didn't look like getting a shot on target, never-mind scoring. Our best and probably only chance from open play came when we changed formation. And considering Sunderland left in 4 to a goal-shy Everton it doesn't say much for our attacking play.

According to Harry we didn't change the formation , although personally I thought we did!

There is no way we were better for 70 minutes yesterday and we created more at Chelsea away as well, that's the thing for me.

Sunderland away was tepid, it happens sometimes but overall it was still a decent enough point considering how we normally fair there. It would of been absolutely fine had we beaten Norwich at home, but no Defoe and the 4-4-2, lack off balls and workrate - open bollox, cost us big time.

 

[sloth]

According to Harry we didn't change the formation , although personally I thought we did!

There is no way we were better for 70 minutes yesterday and we created more at Chelsea away as well, that's the thing for me.

Sunderland away was tepid, it happens sometimes but overall it was still a decent enough point considering how we normally fair there. It would of been absolutely fine had we beaten Norwich at home, but no Defoe and the 4-4-2, lack off balls and workrate - open bollox, cost us big time.

The other thing which we've barely talked about with all this talk of formations and whether to play an extra attacker or DM is that playing one way or another requires coaching. Rodgers spends hours on the training ground drilling his players in what to do in possession, specifically the kinds of off-the-ball positions he wants them taking up in relation to the man with the ball. 4-2-3-1's a lot about getting little rotations going, quick, short passing and pull the opposition out of shape if possible. Against Sunderland, for instance, it looked a bit like we were taking up typical 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 positions off the ball, with the spare man often just seeming to stand a couple of feet laterally from the person with the ball, we saw a lot of players coming deep and then making runs away from the ball again, but very little rotation, and few options for the man on the ball other than side-ways, or attempting the diagonal, through-ball. In other words they looked like a scratch team who are sent out with a particular line-up, but without any real practice in how to make it work. Kind of as if they're expected to improvise. Of course improvisation when you've got creative players like ours can often work, and often things will just click, but you need something to fall back on when it doesn't click.

On the other hand I think they look reasonably well drilled on how to play 4-2-3-1 when we're not in possession, but for me, I'm not sure Harry knows how to coach attack with 4-2-3-1, I suspect he's always seen an extra man in midfield as a kind of 4-5-1 variation, and essentially a defensive set-up, and for attacking he likes 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 and feels he's knows what he's doing there.

Lots of ifs, buts and maybes of course, I don't want to get hung up on my reason's why, but whatever the reason, I do think we'd have benefited from playing it game in, game out, as our main set-up this year.

 

[roosh]

Redknapp.

I'm very drunk right now. I've even put my McDonald's down to type this. (That's a pretty big deal). But this slump cannot possibly be all Harry Redknapp's fault.

It goes beyond reality to think so.

As much as he motivates and sends players out for the two sets of 45 minutes, they really honestly have to take some responsibility for the performances that they've put in since February.

If this is such a wondrous group of players that need very little management, then why the fuck have they been playing like they have for the last two months?

Today, I though Modric was terrible. I thought Parker was fantastic. But through various periods of the last number of games, you have to rationally think that actually there's only so much a manager can influence. There's a lot of a hit to be taken by the players.

Redknapp seems to be taking the most of the hit. Unfairly, in my opinion.

Players need to stand up and be counted and not hide under fans preconceptions of Redknapp's past.

Two cents from a boozy ol' blogger.

I would have agreed with you before, but the longer this goes on, the more I'm thinking it is all down to Redknapp.

The manager plays such a pivotal role in the fate of a football club, and we currently have a manager who has no real incentive to perform well; he actually has incentive to do the opposite.

Redknapp is going to be the next England manager, barring a move by Levy to screw him. Apparently there is a clause in his contract that we would have to be paid 15m in compo, for anyone to poach him; our recent run of results has seen a lot of fans calling for Harry's head, and rightly so. This only serves to weaken Levy's negotiating position, because, even if Redknapp didn't go to Englan, Levy could hardly keep him in the job. If I was more cynical I would say that this is an intentional play by Redknapp, but it might all just be a subconscious thing.

The noises Redknapp has been making over the past few weeks have been the opposite of what you would want to hear from a manager who is trying to motivate his team out of a serious slump, and to fight to the end for 4th spot, not to mention third. Redknapp is secure in the knowledge that he will be the next England manager - again, barring any move by Levy - so his own intrinsic motivation is clearly not going to be there; he doesn't have to finish in the top 4, and if he doesn't, he potentially eases his move to the England job.'

We have been playing like a team devoid of ideas lately, like a team without any real fight; we've played well enough, don't get me wrong, but that is because we have some good players; but when it comes to the psychological part, which is where the manager plays, perhaps, the most pivotal role, we have been seriously lacking. When you hear Scott Parker coming out and saying that he thought the fans had given up, but more importantly he almost felt like Redknapp had given up on them, then you know there is something seriously amiss.

 

[Kendall]

Spurs are rotten to the core. I'll explain why I think this.

We sign players like Gallas, Pienaar, Adebayor, van Der Vaart and Parker. Real grafters and/or winners with top mentalities. Yet, they play for Spurs for a little while and they get infultrated by the 'Spurs Way'. Which is to become mentally weak, to have lots of self doubt and appear like you don't really care.

Some players exibit all these things (Adebayor) some players just a few. You can't, for example, say VDV look like he doesn't care, but you can question his mentality, not his desire to win, but his confidence to use the ball.

United very rarely don't look confident. They lost twice in a row earlier in the year and everyone gasped. It doesn't really happen to them. They pick their heads up and play with confidence again.

When United got a pen from nothing when we were 2-0 up at OT a few years back, rather than focus on the fact we were 2-1 up, we crumbled under our tears and cries of misjustice. The same happened against Chelsea the other week.

We seriously lack something mentally. I don't know whether that's because our club is so cushy or not. The fact is, individually, this is the best group of players we've had since at least the 80s. It's up to the club to sort out our indiscipline on so many levels.

 

[InOffMeLeftShin]

There is something missing of course. We aren't playing as a team at the moment and a lot of fundemental things are off but I don't think it can simply be that as soon as players come to Tottenham they become mentally weak. That sounds like a lot of guff to me, a name can't change a mentality it is down to the coaches and the ethos installed by the coach to determine the mentality of the players in the squad.

United very rarely don't look confident, sure but that is down to the way Ferguson has developed that attitude and players coming into the club learn it pretty quickly. If we were run by Ferguson over many years then we would have a similar mentality now to United do.

When United got a pen from nothing when we were 2-0 up at OT a few years back, rather than focus on the fact we were 2-1 up, we crumbled under our tears and cries of misjustice. The same happened against Chelsea the other week.

This is true and has been true under many different managements at Tottenham but again that has to be something that comes from the management and it isn't simply because of the club.

 

[striebs]

Anyone else think there are facts that we are not aware about which are affecting the team ?

There was a genuine possibility that Harry was going to be incarcerated .

Levy would have to have made contingency plans .

Perhaps he flew off to Europe to offer whoever is flavour of the month a dizzying offer and this made Harry feel insecure ?