Ange Postecoglou | New Spurs boss on 4 year contract
- Thread starter MayosNoun
- Start date
It was 1-1 because Chelsea couldn't take their chances.
Manchester United couldn't win the league in the last year because they couldn't take their chances.
Football is a game of chance, risk and conversion.
What should we compare? How you see things only?
you don't go for a win with 2 players down, is this peer researched? Or a fact of evil_geko in Redcafe?How did Liverpool win against Newcastle? I think Klopp is very stupid for putting Nunez on and going for a win with a man down, away from home?
You're so sure of other teams horrible tactics, what about a team you support? How are it's tactics?
You people are crazy.
We leaked 2 goals in injury time against Arsenal, was our tactics horrible? Or that will pass evil_geko threshold..
There is nothing wrong with how spurs played. It's a game of chance and probability. It might pay off or not. It didn't pay off yesterday. 1 day it will pay off.
United didn't play a high line in Emirates and leaked 2 goals.
Spurs played a high line and leaked 2 goals.
Nothing so extraordinary to call 1 horrible or otherwise. It's just a game of chance and probability.
This is what the caf is about.@Licha-Vidic did you watch the game?
We went like Kamikaze when we were 1:3 down to City in 2011 with ten men, and ended up conceding three more. We didn't have a new, naive manager who only knew one way to play. We had a well drilled team, a title winning team, full of CL winners. Fergie admitted it was a huge error. Not exactly the same, but it happens.
Not because. Despite. It was 1-1 with 15 mins with 9 men to go despite 'school boy tactics'.
That's the part where there is disagreement
Exactly. If Chelsea has been clinical which they were not or have not been all season it could have been 7 or 8.
So when you are playing with 9 against a team that have struggled all season to score against low blocks that's exactly what you do to give you the best chance of getting a result.
Chelsea were always going to win the game the way Spurs set up. It doesn't matter how long it took them to get the 3rd and 4th.
There is no "evil_geko threshold", that is only called common sense. But you carry on, I see you got it all figured out.
It was 1-1 because Chelsea couldn't take their chances.
Manchester United couldn't win the league in the last year because they couldn't take their chances.
Football is a game of chance, risk and conversion.
What should we compare? How you see things only?
How did Liverpool win against Newcastle? I think Klopp is very stupid for putting Nunez on and going for a win with a man down, away from home?
You're so sure of other teams horrible tactics, what about a team you support? How are it's tactics?
You people are crazy.
We leaked 2 goals in injury time against Arsenal, was our tactics horrible? Or that will pass evil_geko threshold..
There is nothing wrong with how spurs played. It's a game of chance and probability. It might pay off or not. It didn't pay off yesterday. 1 day it will pay off.
United didn't play a high line in Emirates and leaked 2 goals.
Spurs played a high line and leaked 2 goals.
Nothing so extraordinary to call 1 horrible or otherwise. It's just a game of chance and probability.
Yes And I wish United would play like that. With such conviction and attacking intent.
Chelsea had 8 shots on target while Spurs had 5.
Chelsea had 56 dangerous attacks while Spurs had 30.
In comparison United 5 shots on target against Fulham on Saturday.
We had 49 dangerous attacks against Fulham.
Spurs played more than more than 70 minutes with a man less. And 45 minutes less 2 men. They had same shots on target against Chelsea as United had against Fulham.
(First red at minute 33.
12 minutes added in first half.
45 minutes second half.
9 minutes added in second half.)
You know why Spurs is 8 points ahead of us, it's not VAR, Redcards or anything... Surprise surprise it's because they play attacking football. They will lose some along the way but they will win more also.
Please answer me this.. Don't run away.There is no "evil_geko threshold", that is only called common sense. But you carry on, I see you got it all figured out.
When United conceded 2 goals in injury time against Arsenal, who did not have a common sense? Just a straight answer
I love you ange
And when you go down to nine
I beg you ange
Keep on playing a high line
I love you ange
Ange Postecoglouuuuu
And when you go down to nine
I beg you ange
Keep on playing a high line
I love you ange
Ange Postecoglouuuuu
I only saw the game from the 67th minute onwards so I missed most of the madness. But I was deeply impressed with the sheer work rate and determination of the Spurs players. I haven't seen that in a United team for so long
That question doesn't make any sense in correlation to Ange's terrible tactics, totally different situations. You are having a mare mate.
You see, you have no answer. Just let it slide mate.
If United conceded 2 injury time goals ( everybody has common sense, our tactics are very okay )
But if Spurs concede 2 injury time goals it's horrible tactics, Ange has no common sense, Spurs is shit.
At least another sober mind. People are slating Spurs while they were competitive upto 94th minute as a 9 man team.
They had 5 shots on target against Chelsea.
We had 5 shots on target against Fulham as 11 man team.
Spurs played more than 70 minutes a man less to add some perspective. Spurs might not win anything but their play is very very scalable and upgradable.
This guy is going to get some Bielsa-like cult
It's difficult to dislike Ange, despite him managing the second biggest bottlers in North London.
It is hard to have an answer to a question that doesn't make any sense.
You see, you have no answer. Just let it slide mate.
If United conceded 2 injury time goals ( everybody has common sense, our tactics are very okay )
But if Spurs concede 2 injury time goals it's horrible tactics, Ange has no common sense, Spurs is shit.
I think it would have been a lot worse if your players didn't get so pre occupied panicking at the idea of actually winning a football game tbh. Literally every time they took a few seconds to compose themselves and pick the right pass you ended up through on goal. If the third goal had come 5-10 minutes earlier and your players weren't so on edge there would have been very big problems.
I wouldn't be harsh on spurs in terms of the bigger picture as they're still a much better team than last season, and in a better place than most people would have guessed they would be...but I'm struggling with this idea that getting two red cards that are entirely your own fault, and then deploying kamikaze tactics, is somehow worthy of praise. How is this not just, you know, really stupid?
If they did the same thing in every game they would finish the season with roughly 0 points and probably facing a further points deduction for extreme indiscipline. That's not actually very brave is it?
I don't think getting two players sent off was part of the plan.
The praise comes from them still wanting to set up aggressively rather than bunkering in and almost inevitably losing anyway. Rightly or wrongly Ange still wanted to win.
Also, whilst we can call it kamikaze, by the 94th minute it was still only 1-2 so whether by luck or by judgment, it largely worked. Maybe he took Chelsea's shite finishing into account when deciding to set up that way. We've not played that consistently high in any other game this season even with 11.
Last edited:
Is anyone watching Atletico vs Celtic?
Celtic red card in 26th min, Played low blocks. Now scoreline is 6-0
If they played a highline people will postulate how a low block would have saved them from embarassment
Celtic red card in 26th min, Played low blocks. Now scoreline is 6-0
If they played a highline people will postulate how a low block would have saved them from embarassment
It probably would have been 5-0 with 11v11. It’s celtic
It wasn't because of their high line though, was it? Their chances (bar the Son one) came from set pieces.
Recency bias
How are they winning set pieces in Chelsea’s half if they stick all nine players in and around their box? Because they sure as shit aren’t defending that box successfully if they try to leave a player upfield and defend deep with just seven men.
I mean there are plenty of examples of teams with a man down using low blocks to secure a good result. Is there many examples of a team going down to 9 men parking the defence on the halfway line succeeding in securing a favourable result?
They drew with them 2-2 last month
Do you think they get those free kicks in advanced areas if they're camped inside their own box?
Liverpool played with 9 against Spurs and didn't have a single attack.
No, whether by luck or judgment, it didn't largely work unless their game plan was hoping Chelsea kept missing.
You reckon that a team that sits back and counters can't win a free kick 40 yards from the opponents' goal? Is the only way to win a free kick 40 yards from the opponents' goal to keep your defensive line at the halfway line?
Fair enough, was at home last time too
To be fair the Bentancur chance came from a free kick earned immediately after you restarted the game after Jackson made it 2-1.
I think when you have only 8 outfield players it’s incredibly hard to counter if you sit as deep as you need to sit to adequately defend your box if you decide to park the bus. You do see teams with a one man disadvantage pose an attacking threat but it’s basically unheard of for a team that’s missing two players to do this. I’ve only ever seen teams desperately clinging on in that scenario. To create as many good chances as Spurs did was very unusual.
Well on the basis of this season that's been a pretty regular occurrence so maybe there was a degree of calculation to it rather than just doing it for a laugh.
Factually, it did largely work.
4-1 and loads of chances for the opposition to say otherwise. It's entertaining to see a manager with balls but let's not pretend that was some tactical masterclass.
If the basis of Spurs winning is giving up chances and hoping the opposition doesn't score then good luck b/c you will need it.
The same question for other way around too: Is there any examples of 9 men withdrew in their box successfully defend the scoreline after 30+ minutes of football?
Or it's the case that 2 men down is just too much to work around with tactic. There is no example of correct way to play when your team is down to 9 men.
Football is a low scoring game and as such always involves a bit of luck. If you play 9v11 you have to ride your luck massively to get a result, no matter which style you play.
I think you overestimate how much of an attacking threat you need to pose in order to win a free kick ten yards forward from the halfway line.
I don’t think you need to have your defensive line at the halfway line to get a foul by the touchline from a goal kick or a throw in.
Nobody is disputing a degree of luck exists, and of course, they could have gotten a result with a bit of luck.
However, if you are going to tell me the best strategy against a team stockpiled with pacy forwards who have shown complete ineptness scoring against organized defenses is to play an aggressive high line down two men, I won't buy that. If the gamble pays off he would get praise, so since the gamble didn't pay off it's only fair he gets criticism.
You don't need to. But I would ask you: Do you believe, that Spurs are currently trained to form this kind of organized defensive low block to pull this off? I don't think so. Is it a massively risky approach to try to outscore while being two man down? Yes definitely. Is it a bigger risk than trying to play a style you didn't train? I don't think so. Sticking to what you are good at is usually the best approach I believe and I do support any team/manager who isn't too scared to believe this as well.