I think it would be interesting to see if he'd have still played with the crazy high backline and a complete gung-ho attitude if he hadn't lost so many defenders to red cards and injuries and had more options than Dier and Emerson Royal. I think he might have then been more conservative while still looking to attack whenever given the opportunity.
Ange Postecoglou | New Spurs boss on 4 year contract
- Thread starter MayosNoun
- Start date
It was only 2-1 in the 94th minute because Chelsea are dreadful with their finishing though, you say that as if it was because of Spurs high line. If Chelsea were even 10% better this game could have ended 10-1
Played too negative while banging 90 goals is a wild one.
Fair enough football is a game of opinions. Rather see this approach tonight in the face of adversity than sitting back with 9 men sat in the box hoofing balls clear but oh well
Why are you assuming he'd use the same tactic against sides that are far more competent than Chelsea? Surely part of the calculus is whether or not the opposition is good at finishing chances - if they aren't then all the more reason to take risks.
Was madness to watch. Spurs didn’t even give it a go as I’ve seen some saying. they didn’t create a chance other than 2 free kicks and the one effort from song, it’s not as if they were playing high line and actually having the ball, they were just letting Chelsea play ball after ball behind them, luckily for them Chelsea were shit. Surely they would have been better defending deep and Atleast leaving son to have some space to run in behind on a counter attack
Play 9 men against Nick Jackson and you're just asking for trouble
Just going to ignore goal difference then? I'm not even presenting another way of playing as the "better way", I'm just highlighting the obvious issues with the way he played and also the objectively worse outcome by playing that way.
I'm not stuck in what would SAF do mode? I'm highlighting that goal difference is important. Why is this presented as some sort of binary choice, like a tap you can only turn on or off? You can definitely still play on the front foot with 11 men and then on the very rare occasion you go down to 9, not play stupidly high and open.
Speak for yourself, you dont know what every fan would think.
It's an interesting test for him now.
Wolves away next, then some toughies. Without two of their backline, Madison possibly out. When the pressure's on will Spurs grind out wins?
They create so many chances which is a sign of a good team. Also you won't get this wishy-washy guff that most managers come out with. Ange will be brutally honest.
Because he basically said himself that he would. That’s who they are now while he’s there
I'm not sure the criticism on here is fair in a week when most people on the forum have complained Ten Hag turned his back on his Ajax system too quickly chasing results by any means - which hasn't worked.
If the second half sending off was a Chelsea player and it was 10v10 I think Spurs win the match. Losing the young CB who is a physical beast for that high line and a fast creative player in Maddison hurts when all is equal on the pitch but you can adjust. 9v11 had no chance so he stuck to principles which will at least be embedded even further now.
If the second half sending off was a Chelsea player and it was 10v10 I think Spurs win the match. Losing the young CB who is a physical beast for that high line and a fast creative player in Maddison hurts when all is equal on the pitch but you can adjust. 9v11 had no chance so he stuck to principles which will at least be embedded even further now.
Who on earth is thinking about goal difference in November? How often does GD play a role at the end of the season? Do you not think that there are potentially nebulous benefits in terms of mentality and team spirit that are completely worth conceding two extra goals in this fixture, especially given the reaction of their supporters?
Ange plays the same way regardless. That’s his strength and his weakness. It’s why watching them under him is going to be so fascinating.
Uh, Spurs chances in the second half had nothing to do with their high line, though conversely their high line was the reason Chelsea got in behind with ease over 10 times in the second half.
Liverpool but for OG deep into added time would have done it already this season.
The three Chelsea goals and other chances in the 2nd half all came from the way Ange set Tottenham up, no way would Klopp set themselves up like that to allow the opposition to create at their ease.
Its a bit strange indeed. Only thing i can think of is that people didnt like that Ange/Spurs were getting praise and now use this moment as a way to cope with that. Spurs isnt expected to win the league or anything really... atleast this way their fans will have fun watching their games. Manchester United isnt likely to win anything either but it also isnt really that much fun to watch.
Again, they lost. We all remember it, since you know, it was only like 3 weeks ago. But the outcome, was still... a loss. It didn't work. And Liverpool are arguably one of the best built teams to even try it. We're asking for a time, when it actually worked.
True - he is absolutely principled, but I don't think he's dogmatic. Perhaps this is conjecture but I think he'd be less aggressive against a City in terms of defensive positioning - because they are far more clinical and thus the optimal setup would be different.
If you are playing against a team that can't hit the broadside of a barn, why wouldn't you try to get into an open match with them where you gamble that your much more clinical forwards can do better? Surely on the balance of probability that's a better approach than basically conceding any form of attack - which is what they'd have had to do by playing a 4-4-0 or a 5-3-0 or whatever. Plus they'd lost both CBs - why would they gamble on their defense holding up? If they had their first choice pairing but had lost players elsewhere I'd guess the strategy would be different.
What are you basing this on? They were literally only able to draw fouls in Chelsea's half because their attackers weren't camped out 10 yards outside their box.
If ten hag did this and we give Chelsea or a team chance after chance after chance and didn’t really create anything ourselves he would be slaughtered on here. I think people are just pointing out it was really bizarre to watch and was always a matter of time until Chelsea timed just one of those runs right.
Some mad opinions on here, spurs nearly came away with a draw whilst sticking to their defined way of playing. Seems some are happy with the tumescent nothingy dross ten hag is serving up
It would be miracle if ten hag had us the top of the league playing entertaining football
I just don’t see it. I’ve watched Celtic go away to Madrid under him and play like it was Dundee at home - create lots of chances - miss them and get walloped. And I doubt he looks back on those games thinking they should have set up any different.
Which backs up that it was a class move. Thanks.
Sons scores and it's 2-2*... let's ignore "deep into injury time" and just speculate instead.
* = I still think they blow this really by the way. Because the defence is shite without their main centre backs.
Because he explicitly said they're going to continue to play like that, so it shows how teams will be able to play against him. If he has his 2 first choice CBs missing, they're going to concede a lot more chances and naturally will have a bigger affect. Sure, but you can't just ignore it. We'll see how he sets up against Wolves.
I don't buy the mentality or team spirit argument. It's dogmatic about a style when they didn't need to be. Ok it's only two extra goals, but it's the chances they gave up that was far more concerning.
It doesn't need to be either extreme though, does it? There could have been a mix of the two styles which would have probably better served them in getting a point against a Chelsea attack that is quite rubbish. Again, I understand that he has a style and wants to stick to it but you do feel that there could have been some middle ground if he hadn't lost so many defenders.
Man City scored 1 more goal last season more than that 2011-2012 season. You think their 2011-2012 attack is as strong? Or only 2 teams scored less than 40 goals (not relegated) means that back there teams are better at attacking? Last 2 normal PL seasons as top league in the world, there were about handful of teams fail to reach 40 goals each season. Was it the tactic (higher coaching level) improvement and talent level rise from lesser teams?
Counter attacking and negative in the right circumstances/ its era doesn't mean they're low scoring. Mourinho's Real Madrid created a scoring record over Pep Guardiola team. Would you say Mourinho play with total football mindset? Does it change that there were no games where negative tactic backfired in the past? And evidently with how football is played now. The focus clearly shifted away from that tactic that got us undone in those games I listed.
Personally given who Spurs lost in the match, I'd adopt any tactic that allows the attack to be more prominently featured. If the defense is already going to be a 0/10, why not put the attack in a position to be decisive? I genuinely don't understand the argument that they could have just defended the box with 8 - with no one up the pitch, Chelsea would have just attacked with 9 or even 10 and had an advantage.
Dogmatic based on his approach to one match and his interviews about said match? Until he actually adopts the same sort of approach elsewhere it's entirely premature to label this as dogmatism given the sample size is 1
You've gone into a tangent to prove some point that was never even there. Man Utd didn't play negatively that season... and neither did Mourinho's Real Madrid. I'm not disagreeing or even claimed anything about tactics evolving substantially over the past 10 years.... just that United weren't negative in that season, and neither were Real Madrid under Mourinho, not even close.
I’m with you. I don’t think it cost them the game at all and it’s a positive going forward for everyone to show that much faith in his players and way of playing. All I’m stating is Ange has shown throughout the last few seasons that he isn’t pragmatic in any way and I don’t think he would have been against City either.
He was like that at Celtic though and was always my fear he'd play like that here if he was to come to the EPL. You can look at my posts earlier in the thread, before he came to spurs.
Point taken though, we will see how he sets up in the next few games, maybe a bit of confirmation bias from me.
I understand your point, but we have to understand the play field is different now. Even lower teams used to score more on average (defensive quality was lower).
Nowadays if you can master the high pressing system that is both offensive and defensive weapon, you can take some damage in big games while getting back much more from other games against weaker teams or in another games where your opposition slip up. Else even though, teams like us can grind out results, we never look like we have great GD even if we can excuse some thrashing defeat as one of those days.
Backs up nothing, Tottenham weren't even creating chances against Liverpool and won with Liverpool scoring the winner for them. Tonight Tottenham gave up chance after chance to Chelsea with the way they set up, Chelsea so mediocre were making a hero out of Vicario and the fact Chelsea was giving up chances themselves when 9 v 11 shows that a result (a draw at least) was there for the taking for Tottenham had they not set themselves up in a way that allowed a fairly toothless Chelsea score 4 goals against them.
He thinks he's playing St Mirren.
Yeah that's fair enough mate - I certainly am not as informed on his background as you are, so if you feel differently your opinion is probably more valid!
I just haven't gotten the impression that he's some sort of ideologue and I think he's generally quite canny - but as I said this is based on very limited exposure. I do still think it's a bit harsh to take what he's said in an emotionally-charged post-match interview as some sort of gospel truth about his approach, though.
That is actually hilarious when they word it like that
If Chelsea weren't so woeful in attack, it could have been double figures.
This is gonna be the great divide of 2023 it seems from not just here, but they'll be no changing of my stance here.... Liverpool's utterly heroic effort aside, with their starting centre backs by the way, I don't think there's anything that suggests this park the bus thing works as well you think it would have, regardless of how toothless people think Chelsea are.
Something different = same result = a nice trivial debate. Thanks Ange, just park the fecking thing next time