ratings vs burnley

[DaSpurs]

One massive plus out of that game was hopefully everyone now realises what a humdrum bucket of averageness Ings is, and with a bit of luck will stop saying things like "really hope we sign him" and "he can play anywhere in the front 4" and other such bollocks.

If our back four today can make him look shit, he definitely isn't the player we need to take us to the promised land.

Honestly, aside from the miss, I thought he had a rather decent game. Certainly didn't sparkle, but he caused us some problems (one of which being a pass that had Mason not gotten to Boyd in time we may have been discussing a loss).

For a tribunal fee, I can't see the harm.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Honestly, aside from the miss, I thought he had a rather decent game. Certainly didn't sparkle, but he caused us some problems (one of which being a pass that had Mason not gotten to Boyd in time we may have been discussing a loss).

For a tribunal fee, I can't see the harm.

The harm, and it's a pretty major one IMO, would be another average ho hum body, costing 50k a week, who would be blocking the progress of a kid for no fee, about 5k a week , who at the very least would match him for ho humness, and might just be better than that.

 

[Kalim]

Pochettino team selection and tactics have baffled me most of the season. I want to believe, but despite being in 6th and on the same points as Liverpool, I am struggling to remember more than two or three games I have enjoyed watching us play this season. Harry and Tim at least gave us decent attacking play even if we were living off our nerves.The last few games have been dire to watch.

 

[THFCSPURS19]

The harm, and it's a pretty major one IMO, would be another average ho hum body, costing 50k a week, who would be blocking the progress of a kid for no fee, about 5k a week , who at the very least would match him for ho humness, and might just be better than that.

Meanwhile Rebic would be an all-action insane Striker who would obliterate everyone in his path.

We have two realistic options:

1. Try and buy a really good (and expensive) striker(s), who wouldn't want to be No.2 after Kane and could block his progress.
2. Buy a promising and younger (and cheap) striker(s) who would be willing to fight for their place and wouldn't necessarily be unhappy with being number 2.

You have seemingly ruled out option 2 if you wouldn't like us to get Ings for free and option 1 could harm Kane. Option 3 would be to promote 2 strikers from the youth team and there's no guarantee they would deliver the goods and we couldn't rely on them. We apparently haven't even got good (and ready) young strikers, so we have to play with a False 9 in the U21s on occasion.

 

[DaSpurs]

The harm, and it's a pretty major one IMO, would be another average ho hum body, costing 50k a week, who would be blocking the progress of a kid for no fee, about 5k a week , who at the very least would match him for ho humness, and might just be better than that.

I'm absolutely with you on cutting down on the ho-hum youth blockers, but a) I just don't think Ings is as "average" as you say and b) it's not as if we have any youth strikers pushing on the edges anyway. I quite like Coulthirst in truth, but he's almost the same age as Ings and doesn't have nine goals and four assists in the Prem even with a relegation-scrapping side that cost in its entirety a quarter of Lamela.

But Ings was not poor today aside from his miss, and especially not to such an extent that everyone here had an epiphany. If not for some quick game-reading and movement from Mason, there's a very good chance Ings would have tallied another assist as Boyd was in at least five yards radius' space and had a great angle.

I agree with you that we need more intelligence, don't let my harping on our vast need for pace detract from that, but I think Ings is a decent young (still weird thinking of him as such because he looks older than my father) player who would very well do even better in our side. He's quick, aggressive, has a decent eye for a pass, and is surprisingly technical (that miss aside, which was pretty damn bad even if he had been put off by Vlad).

 

[For the love of Spurs]

Vorm - 6 not bad really
Walker - 2 bloody awful
Dier - 7 worked hard and played well
Chriches - 7 maybe our MOTM very impressed
Rose - 7 decent game
Bentaleb - 5 very average
Mason - 4 poor then disappeared
Chadli - 3 give this guy a break, completely of form at the moment
Paulinho - 0.01 WTF
Eriksen - 5 very average, but a few good runs.
Kane - 6 some very nice touches and layoffs the very few times he was given the ball but totally starved of service.

Subs
Lamela - 6 worked hard
Davies - 7 did well in an unfamiliar position
Townsend - N/A didn't have time

Poch - 2 poor selection, tactics and motivation
Team - 2 defended ok sort of but otherwise appalling.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Meanwhile Rebic would be an all-action insane Striker who would obliterate everyone in his path.

We have two options:

1. Try and buy a really good (and expensive) striker(s), who wouldn't want to be No.2 after Kane and could block his progress.
2. Buy a promising and younger (and cheap) striker(s) who would be willing to fight for their place and wouldn't necessarily be unhappy with being number 2.

You have seemingly ruled out option 2 if you wouldn't like us to get Ings for free and option 1 could harm Kane. Option 3 would be to promote 2 strikers from the youth team and there's no guarantee they would deliver the goods and we couldn't rely on them. We apparently haven't even got good (and ready) young strikers, so we have to play with a False 9 in the U21s on occasion.

No I've just ruled out Ings because he isn't promising. Unless you just want a promos of ordinariness.

 

[THFCSPURS19]

No I've just ruled out Ings because he isn't promising. Unless you just want a promos of ordinariness.

The same shit was said about Kane last season. Even you said he was not the long-term solution earlier in the season.

I don't know how you can judge the promise of a 22-year-old with such ease, especially after what happened with Kane.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I'm absolutely with you on cutting down on the ho-hum youth blockers, but a) I just don't think Ings is as "average" as you say and b) it's not as if we have any youth strikers pushing on the edges anyway. I quite like Coulthirst in truth, but he's almost the same age as Ings and doesn't have nine goals and four assists in the Prem even with a relegation-scrapping side that cost in its entirety a quarter of Lamela.

But Ings was not poor today aside from his miss, and especially not to such an extent that everyone here had an epiphany. If not for some quick game-reading and movement from Mason, there's a very good chance Ings would have tallied another assist as Boyd was in at least five yards radius' space and had a great angle.

I agree with you that we need more intelligence, don't let my harping on our vast need for pace detract from that, but I think Ings is a decent young (still weird thinking of him as such because he looks older than my father) player who would very well do even better in our side. He's quick, aggressive, has a decent eye for a pass, and is surprisingly technical (that miss aside, which was pretty damn bad even if he had been put off by Vlad).

But there is no point in pace on it's own. Would you want Lennon back in the side ? Townsend ?

You've seen how poor we are with those two, and Walker (and Rose) so you know it's not just about pace. There's only value in pace if is attached to talent and/or intellect too. I am absolutely all for pace, but it is utterly futile if it's just pace, and finding very quick players who are also very good players (including without the ball) is very difficult, because they are in short supply and great demand.

As we saw today a couple of times, if the right runs are made and the right ball is played our players are quick enough, it's the snails pace of their brains that is the bigger problem.

 

[lukespurs7]

Don't like or rate him but credit where credit is due Chiriches had a good game today. In fact the defence generally were not too bad really. CM2 and attacking 4 were extremely disappointing as was the team selection.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

The same shit was said about Kane last season. Even you said he was not the long-term solution earlier in the season.

I don't know how you can judge the promise of a 22-year-old with such ease, especially after what happened with Kane.

I think what I said was "I'm not sure any of our strikers are the long term solution" before he started playing regularly. Which I think was a pretty reasonable opinion at that time.

In the same post I also said:

I like Kane, I remember arguing with you two years ago that I'd rather see him out there learning than waste oxygen on people like Dempsey. I'm not averse to him getting some game time either, I think he's got some ability and a great attitude, just not sure he's the brightest and sometimes he can be a bit clumsy.

 

[DaSpurs]

But there is no point in pace on it's own. Would you want Lennon back in the side ? Townsend ?

You've seen how poor we are with those two, and Walker (and Rose) so you know it's not just about pace. There's only value in pace if is attached to talent and/or intellect too. I am absolutely all for pace, but it is utterly futile if it's just pace, and finding very quick players who are also very good players (including without the ball) is very difficult, because they are in short supply and great demand.

As we saw today a couple of times, if the right runs are made and the right ball is played our players are quick enough, it's the snails pace of their brains that is the bigger problem.

How many times have I had to mention "balance" and how I've never once said "it's all about pace?"

Of course nothing but sheer pace is a poor idea, but again that's just not at all what I'm arguing. You've do absolutely however, have to have more pace and aggression than we currently do to open things back up, as well as the brains to know how and when to do it. Today, we looked extremely lethargic, and lacking in intelligent movement/dispersal as you correctly IMO point out. Of course we all would have preferred a brainy but aggressive player who could have stretched things out for us intelligently, but we simply don't have that player among our attacking options. What we do have is one attacking player who is at least willing to take his man on and induce a bit of stretch and inject some energy, which even if not entirely ideal, would have been massively beneficial. Maybe he'd have done fuck all himself, but he'd have opened up more room for Eriksen, Kane, and Lamela to do something. Otherwise, they were just running into clarets, each other, and I guess earth-shattering photons from the sunlight.

So I agree with you, just having copious amounts of pace is utterly pointless. But if you inject someone with energy, pace, and quick movement into a given rectangle of space to pull some defenders around, that opens up things tremendously for the more brains to work through, especially if up until that point it had been nothing but clueless, lethargic, timid bullshit. We had no one making runs, no one willing to take a man on, and no one willing to cause problems. At least Townsend might have actually pulled his fullback out of position once or twice in which space Eriksen or Kane could have run into.

As it pertains to Ings, he didn't cause us problems with his pace today aside from his missed opportunity. He worked around our box rather well, set up his teammates rather well, and had another very decent attempt on goal. Not all players who don't satisfy your preferred brainy, cerebral type are one and the same, a breed of pacey and brainless mongoloids.

 

[THFCSPURS19]

You know, I really think @DaSpurs and @Bus-Conductor should have a debate about the necessity of pace in a team one day.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

How many times have I had to mention "balance" and how I've never once said "it's all about pace?"

Of course nothing but sheer pace is a poor idea, but again that's just not at all what I'm arguing. You've do absolutely however, have to have more pace and aggression than we currently do to open things back up, as well as the brains to know how and when to do it. Today, we looked extremely lethargic, and lacking in intelligent movement/dispersal as you correctly IMO point out. Of course we all would have preferred a brainy but aggressive player who could have stretched things out for us intelligently, but we simply don't have that player among our attacking options. What we do have is one attacking player who is at least willing to take his man on and induce a bit of stretch and inject some energy, which even if not entirely ideal, would have been massively beneficial. Maybe he'd have done fuck all himself, but he'd have opened up more room for Eriksen, Kane, and Lamela to do something. Otherwise, they were just running into clarets, each other, and I guess earth-shattering photons from the sunlight.

So I agree with you, just having copious amounts of pace is utterly pointless. But if you inject someone with energy, pace, and quick movement into a given rectangle of space to pull some defenders around, that opens up things tremendously for the more brains to work through, especially if up until that point it had been nothing but clueless, lethargic, timid bullshit. We had no one making runs, no one willing to take a man on, and no one willing to cause problems. At least Townsend might have actually pulled his fullback out of position once or twice in which space Eriksen or Kane could have run into.

As it pertains to Ings, he didn't cause us problems with his pace today aside from his missed opportunity. He worked around our box rather well, set up his teammates rather well, and had another very decent attempt on goal. Not all players who don't satisfy your preferred brainy, cerebral type are one and the same, a breed of pacey and brainless mongoloids.

I don't know how you can continue to make this argument for Townsend when you have witnessed the reality of Townsend playing. All he does is stretch the game in the oppositions favour. The best football we have played Townsend was nowhere in sight. He's so poor he's rarely lasted past an hour, sometimes he doesn't make it past half an hour. And you can't "stretch" with pace teams that sit deep and park a bus.

This isn't a debate about whether pace is good or not. It's about the futility of pace without other qualities. Townsend is the proof of my case, not yours. And it is not our biggest deficiency.

 

[Spurger King]

I don't know how you can continue to make this argument for Townsend when you have witnessed the reality of Townsend playing. All he does is stretch the game in the oppositions favour. The best football we have played Townsend was nowhere in sight. He's so poor he's rarely lasted past an hour, sometimes he doesn't make it past half an hour. And you can't "stretch" teams that sit deep and park a bus.

This isn't a debate about whether pace is good or not. It's about the futility of pace without other qualities. Townsend is the proof of my case, not yours. And it is not our biggest deficiency.

I tend to agree. I think the big advantage of pace is that it allows teams to capitalise on a player's best qualities, even if they're not that great. For example, Darren Bent was a reasonable finisher. Not great, but could just about get the ball on target. Charlton set up to play to his strengths, and by and large it worked.

Lennon had his one trick when he was about 18-19, and we used that to our advantage until everyone figured out how easy it was to stop him being a threat.

Not really sure what Walker or Townsend have to offer. Townsend's not a goal threat for us, and both make poor decisions.

I'm certainly warming to Rose though. Not great at defending, but he seems a hell of a lot more threatening going forward than either Townsend or Walker.

 

[DaSpurs]

I don't know how you can continue to make this argument for Townsend when you have witnessed the reality of Townsend playing. All he does is stretch the game in the oppositions favour. The best football we have played Townsend was nowhere in sight. He's so poor he's rarely lasted past an hour, sometimes he doesn't make it past half an hour. And you can't "stretch" teams that sit deep and park a bus.

This isn't a debate about whether pace is good or not. It's about the futility of pace without other qualities. Townsend is the proof of my case, not yours. And it is not our biggest deficiency.

Townsend is "proof of your case" in your mind because you seem to equate pace to brainlessness, and you put words in my mouth every time we have this discussion painting me as the pope of the church of pace and all else be damned/excommunicated. So of course it works in your favor from your standpoint, and of course my argument looks absurd in your eyes, because you paint as such from the beginning. You want nothing but brainiacs and technical splendor on the pitch, and all I'm trying to say is that you should balance those brainiacs with the ability to stretch things out for them, but then you go off saying I'm advocating "Olympic sprinters" everywhere because I think we need more pace in a team with hands down the slowest and most un-aggressive winger stable in the entire league.

"This isn't a debate about whether pace is good or not. It's about the futility of pace without other qualities."

Apparently it is, because I've said all along I agree with this, yet you still drag me out as though I'm advocating nothing but sprinters all the time and consider nothing for tactical brains. Just because I think Townsend would have worked today absolutely does not mean I want "all sprinters all the time." It's about flexibility and adapting to each and every situation through balancing out the weaknesses. I think you're spot on about so much of where we were weak today, but all I'm saying is we could very much have used a bit of pace to better optimize the things you're saying.

We lose the psychological battle right off the bat with our refusal to even attempt to take men on. Opposition fullbacks must have laughs when coming up against us, because they know a) exactly what each of our wide players are going to do, b) two of them will literally not even try to get around them, and c) the third will beat the fullback but it's okay because he then won't even pick out the space behind him. It's child's play to defend against us. This is a problem. Yes, we absolutely need more aggression and more quick wit to fix this, but we have some players of wit, and they're still not getting it done. We have no aggression, and very little pace. So why is it you believe just adding more wit is going to make us consistent again? There is a very, very good reason no one in Europe plays with nothing but creative attacking mids across their AM3, because it does not establish balance.

In games like today, in which we were extremely lethargic and timid, all that I am saying is that we could have used a bit more pace and movement to open things up a bit more for players like Eriksen and Lamela to work through. Yes, I absolutely agree, far more intelligent movement and dispersal would have been fantastic, but nonetheless, you very much can stretch a team that sits deep and parks the bus, because with pace and aggression you can get forward before the opposition has the time to optimally organize, and then you afford more time to your technical players to hurt the opposition. It's just simple physics.

So can we please stop this make-believe battle of extremes in your head? I agree with so much of what you've said for what we need, so why is it we must rehash the same conversation because of Townsend? Frankly, I think it's because while I get you've made it abundantly clear you want considerably more gray matter in the team, you still aren't getting into your head what I'm actually arguing, which is something I think in truth you wouldn't actually find so revolting.

 

[THFCSPURS19]

I tend to agree. I think the big advantage of pace is that it allows teams to capitalise on a player's best qualities, even if they're not that great. For example, Darren Bent was a reasonable finisher. Not great, but could just about get the ball on target. Charlton set up to play to his strengths, and by and large it worked.

Lennon had his one trick when he was about 18-19, and we used that to our advantage until everyone figured out how easy it was to stop him being a threat.

Not really sure what Walker or Townsend have to offer. Townsend's not a goal threat for us, and both make poor decisions.

I'm certainly warming to Rose though. Not great at defending, but he seems a hell of a lot more threatening going forward than either Townsend or Walker.

I think Rose has been very good defensively, which is the main reason for is vast improvement.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Townsend is "proof of your case" in your mind because you seem to equate pace to brainlessness, and you put words in my mouth every time we have this discussion painting me as the pope of the church of pace and all else be damned/excommunicated. So of course it works in your favor from your standpoint, and of course my argument looks absurd in your eyes, because you paint as such from the beginning. You want nothing but brainiacs and technical splendor on the pitch, and all I'm trying to say is that you should balance those brainiacs with the ability to stretch things out for them, but then you go off saying I'm advocating "Olympic sprinters" everywhere because I think we need more pace in a team with hands down the slowest and most un-aggressive winger stable in the entire league.

"This isn't a debate about whether pace is good or not. It's about the futility of pace without other qualities."

Apparently it is, because I've said all along I agree with this, yet you still drag me out as though I'm advocating nothing but sprinters all the time and consider nothing for tactical brains. Just because I think Townsend would have worked today absolutely does not mean I want "all sprinters all the time." It's about flexibility and adapting to each and every situation through balancing out the weaknesses. I think you're spot on about so much of where we were weak today, but all I'm saying is we could very much have used a bit of pace to better optimize the things you're saying.

We lose the psychological battle right off the bat with our refusal to even attempt to take men on. Opposition fullbacks must have laughs when coming up against us, because they know a) exactly what each of our wide players are going to do, b) two of them will literally not even try to get around them, and c) the third will beat the fullback but it's okay because he then won't even pick out the space behind him. It's child's play to defend against us. This is a problem. Yes, we absolutely need more aggression and more quick wit to fix this, but we have some players of wit, and they're still not getting it done. We have no aggression, and very little pace. So why is it you believe just adding more wit is going to make us consistent again? There is a very, very good reason no one in Europe plays with nothing but creative attacking mids across their AM3, because it does not establish balance.

In games like today, in which we were extremely lethargic and timid, all that I am saying is that we could have used a bit more pace and movement to open things up a bit more for players like Eriksen and Lamela to work through. Yes, I absolutely agree, far more intelligent movement and dispersal would have been fantastic, but nonetheless, you very much can stretch a team that sits deep and parks the bus, because with pace and aggression you can get forward before the opposition has the time to optimally organize, and then you afford more time to your technical players to hurt the opposition. It's just simple physics.

So can we please stop this make-believe battle of extremes in your head? I agree with so much of what you've said for what we need, so why is it we must rehash the same conversation because of Townsend? Frankly, I think it's because while I get you've made it abundantly clear you want considerably more gray matter in the team, you still aren't getting into your head what I'm actually arguing, which is something I think in truth you wouldn't actually find so revolting.

You say all this, but then in the previous post try to make a case for playing Townsend, because he'd "stretch" the game. It's not me who is confused about their message.

Make your mind up. If you genuinely think Townsend's pace would improve us, then I disagree. If you don't think that, stop saying it.

 

[DaSpurs]

You say all this, but then in the previous post try to make a case for playing Townsend, because he'd "stretch" the game. It's not me who is confused about their message.

Make your mind up. If you genuinely think Townsend's pace would improve us, then I disagree. If you don't think that, stop saying it.

Alright, I'll be very clear. Maybe that will alleviate the confusion.

Do I think we could have used his pace and energy today? Absolutely.

Do I think you're right that we needed more intelligence in our movement and ball dispersal? Absolutely.

Do I think we were very cowardly and timid today, and could very much have used an option who actually would run at the opposition a bit? Absolutely.

Do I think Townsend's pace and energy would help this current squad out? Absolutely, because I think players such as Kane, Eriksen, and Lamela need more room to work with and flaunt the wit we do have.

Do I think Townsend should be starting next year after a transfer window? No.

 

[lukespurs7]

Alright, I'll be very clear. Maybe that will alleviate the confusion.

Do I think we could have used his pace and energy today? Absolutely.

Do I think you're right that we needed more intelligence in our movement and ball dispersal? Absolutely.

Do I think we were very cowardly and timid today, and could very much have used an option who actually would run at the opposition a bit? Absolutely.

Do I think Townsend's pace and energy would help this current squad out? Absolutely, because I think players such as Kane, Eriksen, and Lamela need more room to work with and flaunt the wit we do have.

Do I think Townsend should be starting next year after a transfer window? No.

At the moment he is an option we should be using, moving forward he should be a squad player unless he sees a Kane like dramatic improvement.