Ange Postecoglou | New Spurs boss on 4 year contract

[Matt851]

It didn't almost work. They lost 4-1 and Chelsea missed about 5 sitters and had probably 10+ times where they would have been through but overhit a simple pass. They got absolutely wiped out in their own stadium by one of their rivals due to playing and behaving like a bunch of school children.

Literally could have equalised on two separate occasions with minutes to go. How is that not almost working? Are you dim?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

There are plenty of ifs everyone can come up with, if they had been playing anyone in the top 10 other than Chelsea and us they would have been absolutely mauled. They lost 4-1, goal difference means something.

You're assuming they would have definitely lost by fewer goals if they parked the bus. A two man deficit is a very big deal, no matter how you defend. The fact they kept the margin to a single goal until deep into injury time (and shut Chelsea out for 20 minutes after the second red card) really just proves their tactics weren't as terrible as you seem to think.

 

[evil_geko]

So, one loss and he is called a fraud??

No, lots of people were saying it from the start that it was only honeymoon period and everyone was overreacting how good he actually is.

You're assuming they would have definitely lost by fewer goals if they parked the bus. A two man deficit is a very big deal, no matter how you defend. The fact they kept the margin to a single goal until deep into injury time (and shut Chelsea out for 20 minutes after the second red card) really just proves their tactics weren't as terrible as you seem to think.

Come on mate, Chelsea are horrible, they could have easily closed down and get that 1:1 draw with 9 men. And maybe even win on counter. But he went suicide schoolboy tactics instead.

 

[Lyng]

No, lots of people were saying it from the start that it was only honeymoon period and everyone was overreacting how good he actually is.


Come on mate, Chelsea are horrible, they could have easily closed down and get that 1:1 draw with 9 men.

But its still 1 loss, and a losss where they where down to 9 men. Putting any definitive statement on his managerial skills based on that seems, premature at best.

 

[evil_geko]

But its still 1 loss, and a losss where they where down to 9 men. Putting any definitive statement on his managerial skills based on that seems, premature at best.

Much more premature is singing the praises based on new manager bounce, Ole vibes all over again.

 

[WeePat]

You're assuming they would have definitely lost by fewer goals if they parked the bus. A two man deficit is a very big deal, no matter how you defend. The fact they kept the margin to a single goal until deep into injury time (and shut Chelsea out for 20 minutes after the second red card) really just proves their tactics weren't as terrible as you seem to think.

Perhaps Ange doesn’t think parking the bus with 9 men was the best way to secure a result but Liverpool sat back with 9 men for the last 30 mins and Spurs hugged and puffed and created nothing. They were lucky they got a flukey OG at the death. Ange just seems like the sort of coach who will stick to plan A no matter the game situation. It was entertaining to watch, I’ll give him that.

 

[Lyng]

Much more premature is singing the praises based on new manager bounce, Ole vibes all over again.

He has a history of winning throphies where he has been to be fair. And Spurs have been unbeaten until last night. I think there is merrit to some of the praise, even if I agree with you it has been over the top at times.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Perhaps Ange doesn’t think parking the bus with 9 men was the best way to secure a result but Liverpool sat back with 9 men for the last 30 mins and Spurs hugged and puffed and created nothing. They were lucky they got a flukey OG at the death. Ange just seems like the sort of coach who will stick to plan A no matter the game situation. It was entertaining to watch, I’ll give him that.

So Liverpool conceded one goal during 30 minutes of defending deep with 9 men. After 40 minutes of defending with a high line with 9 men, Spurs had also conceded just one goal. They had also created a hell of a lot better chances to score than Liverpool did. The flurry of late goals was down to a team that was knackered and didn't have anything to hold onto any more. I doubt they would have happened if Son had converted that great chance in the 94th minute.

 

[Conor]

You're assuming they would have definitely lost by fewer goals if they parked the bus. A two man deficit is a very big deal, no matter how you defend. The fact they kept the margin to a single goal until deep into injury time (and shut Chelsea out for 20 minutes after the second red card) really just proves their tactics weren't as terrible as you seem to think.

Did you watch the game? They should have conceded a heap of goals, Chelsea are absolutely poison.

 

[CallyRed]

So, one loss and he is called a fraud??

That's the way of the internet

 

[Castia]

It didn't almost work. They lost 4-1 and Chelsea missed about 5 sitters and had probably 10+ times where they would have been through but overhit a simple pass. They got absolutely wiped out in their own stadium by one of their rivals due to playing and behaving like a bunch of school children.

It was only Chelsea's own baffling ineptness that made it interesting.

Well they could have won the game. They had 1 ruled out via VAR and missed 2 glorious chances themselves in the last 10 minutes

I get that Chelsea had a lot of chances but they didn’t finish them and it almost cost them the points. We could argue back and forth all day about the tactic and who was right but the fact remains they had 9 men and up until 94th minute they could have not only nicked an equaliser but a winning goal.


The alternative was to sit back and try to defend with a team of 9 men and a load of backup players, It was a bonkers approach but it made for a brilliant game.

 

[WeePat]

So Liverpool conceded one goal during 30 minutes of defending deep with 9 men. After 40 minutes of defending with a high line with 9 men, Spurs had also conceded just one goal. They had also created a hell of a lot better chances to score than Liverpool did. The flurry of late goals was down to a team that was knackered and didn't have anything to hold onto any more. I doubt they would have happened if Son had converted that great chance in the 94th minute.

But Chelsea missed like 3 big chances before that Son chance. Liverpool conceded an OG literally seconds before the game ended and it was, I think, the only chance they created the entire time they were up against 9 men and it was barely a chance, just a hopeful ball across the goal that Matip misjudged. Spurs created some chances but were giving up sitters too and ended up giving up 3 goals. A better attacking team would have had the score 3-1 before Son’s chance. So yeah I’d say Liverpool’s approach had a much better chance of securing a result vs 9 men than what Ange tried last night.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

But Chelsea missed like 3 big chances before that Son chance. Liverpool conceded an OG literally seconds before the game ended and it was, I think, the only chance they created the entire time they were up against 9 men and it was barely a chance, just a hopeful ball across the goal that Matip misjudged. Spurs created some chances but were giving up sitters too and ended up giving up 3 goals. A better attacking team would have had the score 3-1 before Son’s chance. So yeah I’d say Liverpool’s approach had a much better chance of securing a result vs 9 men than what Ange tried last night.

Also worth bearing in mind that Liverpool were defending deep with their first choice defenders, Spurs had a cobbled together back line.

 

[Di Maria's angel]

His reaction to the Var decisions were a breath of fresh air. Compared to other man child managers in the North of London

Not really. He complained about the handball against Arsenal.

 

[WeePat]

Also worth bearing in mind that Liverpool were defending deep with their first choice defenders, Spurs had a cobbled together back line.

Yeah I hear you, that’s a fair point. But actually having Dier and Emerson Royale back there might have been even more of a reason to sit back. Dier stood no chance in a foot race once we got our timings right with runs and through balls.

 

[Aint gota Kalou]

Not really. He complained about the handball against Arsenal.

From memory he was complaining about the handball law rather than focusing on the performance of the ref. It was really measured and if anything implied that refs are in a difficult position so unless I've missed something I think you've misrepresented that

 

[Abraxas]

Not sure what the big deal is. They had 2 men sent off. That doesn't cut it at PL level.

They were going to lose no matter what. What's the difference really. Maybe he just didn't want to start telling his team to drop off and be defensive and set a precedent that it's within his thinking to do that. Whether that steadfast inflexibility will be successful long term I don't know but I really don't get the big deal about getting a bit of a hiding with 9 or about his tactics in one game with 9 men.

It's easy to sweep that one under the carpet as a manager. The only problem is the suspensions.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

From memory he was complaining about the handball law rather than focusing on the performance of the ref. It was really measured and if anything implied that refs are in a difficult position so unless I've missed something I think you've misrepresented that

Correct.

Speaking after the match, Postecoglou hit out at the new interpretation of the rule which many feel has seen more handballs awarded for accidental contact.
He said: “I’ve got no idea about the handball rule. I really don’t.
"I saw the one yesterday at Wolves [against Luton] and it just seems if it hits your hand it’s a penalty and then other times if it hits your hand, it isn’t a penalty.
“I’ve got no idea. It is the one rule in the game I just don’t understand.
“Unless we start developing armless defenders I don’t know how you are supposed to block things and be in a natural position.”

He was spot on then as well.

 

[Zlatan 7]

I really like him and his outlook in the game, rules, respect, officials etc it’s a breath of fresh air to listen to.

He did make me laugh yesterday with those tactics though, it’s not like they were having a go and pressing deep into Chelsea’s half with a high line, most of the time there were 7 men on the half way line with son running around on his own, why didn’t they just drop that 7 man line back ten yards to Atleast close the space between them and the keeper. You was just watching it knowing Chelsea were going to time one of those runs right, I was willing spurs to hold out as it was such a bonkers thing to watch.

 

[Licha-Vidic]

You're assuming they would have definitely lost by fewer goals if they parked the bus. A two man deficit is a very big deal, no matter how you defend. The fact they kept the margin to a single goal until deep into injury time (and shut Chelsea out for 20 minutes after the second red card) really just proves their tactics weren't as terrible as you seem to think.

Absolutely correct.


Yet we conceded 2 goals, deep into stoppage time in emirates with 11 players. But throw shades to Spurs leaking 2 goals in stoppage time with 9 men.

We only managed to beat Nottingham, with a penalty at home when they were a man down.

People here make alot of assumptions regarding other teams but when it comes to us, we usually find something to blame.

If I was a spurs fan, I would be very happy with what I saw yesterday, because of 1 thing..

The team stuck, trained ( because they were against the wall) , was competitive in it's own identity even with 2 players down. Meaning if they can maintain their shape and competitive edge with 9 men then with 11 men they will grow in leaps and bounds.

Spurs were beaten because of numerical superiority not tactics or anything else.

 

[Castia]

What do you mean? Spurs DID only score 1 and they barely created anything with their 9 man high line, 2 set pieces chances, a long range pot shot from Son and a shot from Bentencur. Meanwhile Chelsea had a plethora of 1on1s which they messed up by not squaring the ball, shooting straight at the goalie or missing, and that's not even mentioning how incompetent they were at trying to beat the high line which would be a cake walk for any half decent attack. Make no mistake, this game and result said a lot more about Chelsea's attacking incompetence than how good Ange's 'brave' tactics were, this could have ended in an all time beating and I wonder what all the Ange bootlickers would be saying.

But it could have also ended 3-2 to Spurs! you don’t seem to be grasping that at all

it wasn’t 10-1
it was 2-1 in the 94th minute
Spurs whilst 2-1 down had 3 very good chances to equalise

They’re the facts. Nothing else to it. It’s a pointless discussion honestly

 

[PaudieG91]

Absolutely correct.


Yet we conceded 2 goals, deep into stoppage time in emirates with 11 players. But throw shades to Spurs leaking 2 goals in stoppage time with 9 men.

We only managed to beat Nottingham, with a penalty at home when they were a man down.

People here make alot of assumptions regarding other teams but when it comes to us, we usually find something to blame.

If I was a spurs fan, I would be very happy with what I saw yesterday, because of 1 thing..

The team stuck, trained ( because they were against the wall) , was competitive in it's own identity even with 2 players down. Meaning if they can maintain their shape and competitive edge with 9 men then with 11 men they will grow in leaps and bounds.

Spurs were beaten because of numerical superiority not tactics or anything else.

Completely disagree.

Completely naive from Ange and Spurs. They played suicide football in that second half. Chelsea were lining up to get in and if not for poor decision making and some top class keeping it could have been 7 or 8.

Chelsea have struggled all season against teams who sit in. Spurs could have sat back much like Liverpool did in the same situation and frustrated them and tried to counter.

There was absolutely no chance of Chelsea not scoring with the way they played. I like Ange but I hate the "brave" narrative being portrayed for what they did. Naive is all it was.

 

[VivaObertan]

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.

I don't think that's true, Spurs were drawing fouls all over the pitch and their starting position from a defensive perspective wasn't the reason for that. Gusto foul on Spurs' left, Mudryk/Cucarella a few times on Spurs' right etc. were all after sustained possession starting from multiple position, rather than being a by-product of winning the ball back high up the pitch.

Spurs' tactics were absolutely suicidal and I'm shocked that Pochettino/Chelsea weren't able to exploit it for so long. Honestly, Eriksen or Bruno, partnered with Rashford or Garnacho would've run close to double figures if they had 35 minutes vs 9 men playing on the half-way line.

EDIT: I'll just add... would van den Ven have pulled his hamstring and would Udogie have been sent off if Spurs were playing a more pragmatic game when 10 vs 11? There's certainly a case to argue that the tactics contributed to more than an easy route to goalfor Chelsea.

 

[VARsenal]

But it could have also ended 3-2 to Spurs! you don’t seem to be grasping that at all

it wasn’t 10-1
it was 2-1 in the 94th minute
Spurs whilst 2-1 down had 3 very good chances to equalise

They’re the facts. Nothing else to it. It’s a pointless discussion honestly

You don't seem to grasp the part about Chelsea's incompetence, and even with that they still wolloped spurs 4-1, that's facts. But whatever man, sure spurs could have scored from the two set pieces they had and that makes the high line 'smart', 'brave' and 'good tactics'....

 

[Gabriel Djemba-Bebe]

You mean there aren't many examples of P.L teams playing with 9 men - if we ignore at least one of the red cards happening right at the end of the game

Eh? The red cards in the Liverpool Spurs game and last night were both before the 70th minute.

 

[bosskeano]

it was naive for Ange not to drop the line with his players starting to tire on the back line...it was 1-1 with 15 to go

anyone who says otherwise are just arguing for the sake of arguing.....ie a spurs fan

 

[Dancfc]

So you are counting all the Chelsea chances as goals but ignoring the spurs ones? Their keeper played well but I don't buy they wouldn't have needed him to make some saves if they HD just sat in a low block with 9 men

Is it not also possible that ange realised they were playing Chelsea rather than a better team

He could have probably got the point by sticking everyone behind the ball as I wouldn't have fancied our chances of breaking down even a 9 man low block, infact we may have even got ourselves done on the counter.

As he said it's just the manager he is.

 

[JuriM]

Ange is the best thing that has happened in the football atm.

 

[Boycott]

The Liverpool comparison seems to neglect the fact along with going down to ten men Spurs lost through injury a very strong and quick CB and their main creator in midfield before half time. The importance of those two to Spurs would be like Liverpool losing Van Dijk and Szoboszlai through injuries as well as the red cards. Van De Ven makes that high line work by his ability to cover ground so quickly and make clean tackles in the same manner as Van Dijk does. Maddison carries the ball well relieving his team from being under pressure, creates chances and at the least gets them up the pitch to win set pieces.

 

[noodlehair]

Literally could have equalised on two separate occasions with minutes to go. How is that not almost working? Are you dim?

Are you just going to ignore the literally 10+ occasions Chelsea should have scored, which included the spurs keeper having to make several one v one saves, multiple goal mouth scrambles, goal line clearances, etc, and the fact they still won 4-1 in spite of that?

If you're going to count chances Spurs had as somehow justifying losing 4-1 because they "could have equalised", you then have to account for the numerous chances the other team had as well where they "could have gone another goal up", and you end up a subjective score of, I dunno about 15-3?

Its almost working in the same way walking in a straight line to the enemy trench while getting fired at by machine guns, and somehow all the bullets miss you until you nearly make it, but then get shot to death, is almost working. It didn't work and even if it did through pure luck, you'd still be a complete fecking idiot.

Also maybe don't dish out the playground insults for no reason, unless you are actually about 8 year old.

 

[Licha-Vidic]

Completely disagree.

Completely naive from Ange and Spurs. They played suicide football in that second half. Chelsea were lining up to get in and if not for poor decision making and some top class keeping it could have been 7 or 8.

Chelsea have struggled all season against teams who sit in. Spurs could have sat back much like Liverpool did in the same situation and frustrated them and tried to counter.

There was absolutely no chance of Chelsea not scoring with the way they played. I like Ange but I hate the "brave" narrative being portrayed for what they did. Naive is all it was.

Suicide football in second half, when it was 2-1 upto 94th minute?
With 8 outfield players.

Let's maintain some clarity, if it was 4-1 from minute 30, then they tried to 'win' the game with 8 outfield players then that would have been naive.

But till 94th minute yesterday, Spurs had a chance of getting a draw. Son even had a very big chance on 93rd minute.

All this was done with Spurs maintaining their playing style.

For Liverpool you were away against Spurs, so sitting back is not that bad.

 

[RVN1991]

I don’t quite get this comment. Do you think having them try and defend on the half way line made it better? Is it not easier to defend as a defender, no matter who you are, to defend play in front of you, rather than having to defend constantly chasing back towards your own goal?

Not a fan of inviting pressure while trying to protect a scoreline at all, think it's a lot more counterproductive than keeping the other side honest by trying to create chances yourself.

At the end of the day the game was sealed once Spurs went down to nine men and VDV got injured.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

The fella is a breath of fresh air. Responsible comments after the game regarding refs and VAR. Genuinely exciting suicidal football when down to 9 men.

Utterly soulless people criticising his approach after the two red cards. Fella has lost one game all season and only lost here due to ill discipline. Loved that he carried on going for it in a way that made little sense but continued to be exciting.

He’s a really great addition to the league and I envy Tottenham fans. Wish he was in charge at United. I’d take a top 6 finish while wanting to turn the match on to watch every week.

 

[evil_geko]

Suicide football in second half, when it was 2-1 upto 94th minute?
With 8 outfield players.

Let's maintain some clarity, if it was 4-1 from minute 30, then they tried to 'win' the game with 8 outfield players then that would have been naive.

But till 94th minute yesterday, Spurs had a chance of getting a draw. Son even had a very big chance on 93rd minute.

All this was done with Spurs maintaining their playing style.

For Liverpool you were away against Spurs, so sitting back is not that bad.

It was 1:1 with 15 mins to go, they could have easily hold on against this horrible Chelsea side with smarter play, they wouldn't have to "had a chance of getting a draw" in the 94th minute if they played smarter with 9 men in the first place when it was still a draw, there is no excuse, horrible school boy tactics from Ange.

 

[Licha-Vidic]

It was 1:1 with 15 mins to go, they could have easily hold on against this horrible Chelsea side with smarter play, they wouldn't have to "had a chance of getting a draw" in the 94th minute if they played smarter with 9 men in the first place when it was still a draw, there is no excuse, horrible school boy tactics from Ange.

And they were 11 v 11 men at 1 minute and at 0-0, they should have hold on. Should we go on....

What has our 'non horrible school boy tactics Man United achieved'?

You people are crazy. It was 1-1 with 15 mins with 9 men to go because of 'school boy tactics'.

 

[Rnd898]

Are you just going to ignore the literally 10+ occasions Chelsea should have scored, which included the spurs keeper having to make several one v one saves, multiple goal mouth scrambles, goal line clearances, etc, and the fact they still won 4-1 in spite of that?

If you're going to count chances Spurs had as somehow justifying losing 4-1 because they "could have equalised", you then have to account for the numerous chances the other team had as well where they "could have gone another goal up", and you end up a subjective score of, I dunno about 15-3?

Its almost working in the same way walking in a straight line to the enemy trench while getting fired at by machine guns, and somehow all the bullets miss you until you nearly make it, but then get shot to death, is almost working. It didn't work and even if it did through pure luck, you'd still be a complete fecking idiot.

Nail on the head. It's ridiculous how some people seem to cling on to the fact Spurs had a couple of decent chances due to their choice of risky tactics while completely ignoring the cluster bombing that was going on in the other end.

Spurs did create enough to score another goal and maybe repeating the same second half a hundred times 9v11 with the same tactics they could by some stroke of luck snatch a draw maybe once or twice but any other time if you play with a suicidal approach like Spurs did you'd see the game being put to bed very early on. It's a miracle they held on as long as they did because our finishing and final balls were all terrible.

 

[evil_geko]

And they were 11 v 11 men at 1 minute and at 0-0, they should have hold on. Should we go on....

What has our 'non horrible school boy tactics Man United achieved'?

You people are crazy. It was 1-1 with 15 mins with 9 men to go because of 'school boy tactics'.

You are making no sense at all, comparing 11v11 vs 9v11 approach, that is the point, smart managers adjust to situation. You do not go for the win with 2 players down, if it was 9v11 while losing, sure, he has nothing to lose, but going at it with 9 men while having a draw, and game being very close to the end? Beyond stupid.

Also what does Man United have to do with Ange's horrible tactics? What kind of nonsense 'whataboutery' you are on about?

There is no defending that horrible approach.

 

[Zlatan 7]

And they were 11 v 11 men at 1 minute and at 0-0, they should have hold on. Should we go on....

What has our 'non horrible school boy tactics Man United achieved'?

You people are crazy. It was 1-1 with 15 mins with 9 men to go because of 'school boy tactics'.

No it was still 1-1 because Chelsea couldn’t take one of the umpteen chances they had when spurs were repeatedly letting them in behind.

spurs we’re not even having a go, they just had 7 men lined up on the half way line with no one pressuring the ball. I could only imagine your response had United played like this or Chelsea took their chances. It would have either ended 10-1 or he would have had to drop back. Luckily for him Chelsea were shit.

 

[tomaldinho1]

So, one loss and he is called a fraud??

just you wait until his hair goes, he'll then ascend to the ultimate level

 

[MackRobinson]

So you are counting all the Chelsea chances as goals but ignoring the spurs ones? Their keeper played well but I don't buy they wouldn't have needed him to make some saves if they HD just sat in a low block with 9 men

Is it not also possible that ange realised they were playing Chelsea rather than a better team

After the red card who had the majority of the good chances? This is not controversial.