• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

OMT Spurs v City Sunday 4pm

braineclipse said:
What is the benefit if a back 3 is not seen as a likely solution for next season?

Why not spend this time continuing to work towards what we're planning to do next season instead? We have the youngest team in Europe (tm), why not continue to give those players the chance to grow and gain experience in positions and roles they're now starting to become comfortable in? You really don't think there's a significant benefit to working towards consistency here?
Click to expand...

Like I said to Billy, I can see where you are coming from. However, next season is next season. We will have ( hopefully) different and better players in some key positions. I think it would be worth experimenting now and starting afresh in pre-season. We need to have further options in our game plan for when 4231 isn't appropriate or isn't working. Better to try other formations now in the fag end of the season, which would suit the players available to us at this moment in time more imo. Do you really want to get stuck in 4231 mode no matter what the circumstances?
 
To me the rationale for 3 - 4 - 2 - 1 is that it looks like the best option for countering City who attack constantly from the wings with Navas/Zabaleta and Silva / Kolarov. Our current formation with inverted wingers moving instinctively into central positions threatens to leave us exposed on the flanks. A wing back protected by an additional centre back will provide better solidity and shape.

As Pirate says, it could offer a potential plan B or C...
 
Pirate55 said:
Like I said to Billy, I can see where you are coming from. However, next season is next season. We will have ( hopefully) different and better players in some key positions. I think it would be worth experimenting now and starting afresh in pre-season. We need to have further options in our game plan for when 4231 isn't appropriate or isn't working. Better to try other formations now in the fag end of the season, which would suit the players available to us at this moment in time more imo. Do you really want to get stuck in 4231 mode no matter what the circumstances?
Click to expand...

We should go in to next season with a fairly solid knowledge of what formation and system we're planning to play. A back 3 requires fairly specialized players and could easily change our plans in the transfer window.

Which teams successfully change between a back 3 and a back 4 regularly as their starting formation? Other than some of Pep's teams I struggle to think of examples. Like Jordinho said on the previous page Liverpool, United and QPR have all reverted to a back 4 by the looks of things.

I wouldn't want starting afresh in pre-season. This is essentially where Liverpool are. 3 years after Rodgers took over and they're struggling to know which players they want because they don't know what system and formation they'll be playing.

Maltese Falcon said:
To me the rationale for 3 - 4 - 2 - 1 is that it looks like the best option for countering City who attack constantly from the wings with Navas/Zabaleta and Silva / Kolarov. Our current formation with inverted wingers moving instinctively into central positions threatens to leave us exposed on the flanks. A wing back protected by an additional centre back will provide better solidity and shape.

As Pirate says, it could offer a potential plan B or C...
Click to expand...

Defensive solidity by making huge changes to our formation... I don't see it.

One of the problems with a back 3 is that the wing backs can easily get exposed. It's not as easy as you make it seem for the two wide central defenders to just support their wing backs. Tactically it's much easier for a wide midfielder to support a full back.

I'll ask you too. Which teams regularly switch between a back 3 and a back 4 to "counter opponents who constantly attack from the wings"? The teams I see that are solid defensively seem to play a fairly consistent back line and very rarely switch from a back 3 to a back 4 (one of the larger tactical changes around imo). Last year when Liverpool kept switching it up they were dreadful defensively, this year United tried a back 3 for a while - but have looked significantly better after changing to a back 4 and sticking with that for a while.
 
If our concern is defensive solidity and cover down the flanks a much simpler solution than switching to a back 3 is pretty obvious.

Play harder working, more disciplined wide players. In other words no Townsend and no Chadli in the wide areas. If we want to go a bit extreme Dembele and Lamela, or even shifting Mason to a wide attacking role. Eriksen and Lamela as a compromise between defensive solidity and getting our best attacking players on the pitch. Chadli in behind Kane should also give us some counter attacking options.
 
Emirates Marketing Project to the sword.
Back to the old days of dominance.
Like '93...except this time on our turf...4-2...Nayim, Teddy, Bobby and Lamela-raboner! Teddy again told to blast pen over the bar to prevent Emirates Marketing Project hordes from further pitch-spillage, Coton subbed on for Hart to give the instruction. Holsten to sponsor for the day...Samways and Nabil driving the midfield...Andy Turner instead of Andros...stupid Emirates Marketing Project fan gets tossed out for throwing coins at me all fudging match and yelling 'fat roosterney cooont' when he actually resembles Susan Boyle in stereo...happy days are here again...tossers...all of them...we gain vital upper hand by making a centre-circle presentation to Yaya of a giant fudge-off birthday cake with extra frosting, at which point WHL erupts with a chorus of 'jelly and ice cream for the birthday boy'...Yaya melt down in tears of joy at having his birthday recognized...

Again, 4-2.
 
braineclipse said:
If our concern is defensive solidity and cover down the flanks a much simpler solution than switching to a back 3 is pretty obvious.

Play harder working, more disciplined wide players. In other words no Townsend and no Chadli in the wide areas. If we want to go a bit extreme Dembele and Lamela, or even shifting Mason to a wide attacking role. Eriksen and Lamela as a compromise between defensive solidity and getting our best attacking players on the pitch. Chadli in behind Kane should also give us some counter attacking options.
Click to expand...

We tried that... for the last 20 minutes against Soton; and were totally toothless.

Good managers arrange formations that suit the players available - as Van Gaal did at the last World Cup - not the other way round. With the fit players available, on paper, a 3 - 4 - 2 - 1 of:

................Lloris............

...Dyer.........Fazio..........Verts

Yedlin......Bentaleb..Dembele.....Rose

.............Chadli....Eriksen..........

...................Kane.....................

has obvious potential both in providing width and pace on both flanks as well as solidity with the wingbacks covered by a extra centre back and more numbers through the middle.

It would also reduce the current congestion in the middle with Kane, Eriksen, Lamela and Chadli, more often than not, almost bumping into each other.

Ultimately Stop! Hammer time but after three toothless performances since Walker's injury (Saudi Sportswashing Machine apart) I feel we should try something else
 
3 at the back is a bad idea. It looks good and makes sense on paper but you end up as others have said needing very particular players. Your centre backs need to more not less mobile, Fazio wandering around in the middle may seem like a good idea, but you only need to see what happened v Utd away that if you pull our CB's around gaps appear everywhere.

Yedlin hasnt played at this level, or in this team, asking him to start a game against the current champions in a new system. Hmmm
 
CEA6njDUkAAz9le.jpg
 
imcallingbullsh*t said:
3 at the back is a bad idea. It looks good and makes sense on paper but you end up as others have said needing very particular players. Your centre backs need to more not less mobile, Fazio wandering around in the middle may seem like a good idea, but you only need to see what happened v Utd away that if you pull our CB's around gaps appear everywhere.

Yedlin hasnt played at this level, or in this team, asking him to start a game against the current champions in a new system. Hmmm
Click to expand...

Just seen the Leicester game; played 3 at the back and they were extremely solid - lo and behold - managed to impose both width and pace. Indeed since going to 3 at the back their form has been a revelation. But then Wasilewski, Huth, Morgan are unique and special players that our centre backs cannot even dream of emulating.... :rolleyes:
 
galeforce said:
games against Saudi Sportswashing Machine are not great data points
Click to expand...

Precisely - meaning that, other than in games against the bottom 3, our 4 - 2 - 3 - 1 has been a total failure since the win against Swansea two months ago... and you do not feel we should look at possible alternatives?
 
From the archives:

Tottenham H 3-1 Manchester C - 25th August 1990

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

This game was effectively Gazza and Lineker's homecoming after the World Cup. It was the opening day of the 1990/91 season on a scorching hot day at White Hart Lane. Gazza was the nation's darling after the 1990 World Cup Finals and Gazzamania was at it's height. Having finished the previous season in 3rd place (before the days of the Champions League!) spirits high in N17. Bizarrely by modern day standards we hadn't bought any new signings during the Summer which meant that was no bedding in period for half the team and Terry Venables had a good pre-season to work with the team. With the season ending in a '1' there were high hopes that this could be a successful one for Spurs....which meant winning a trophy!

City had finished in mid-table the following season, their first back in the top flight for 6 years.

The game followed script with Lineker scoring inside the first two minutes only for Niall Quinn to equalise. Spurs stepped up a gear in the second half with Lineker expertly finishing Nayim's cute through ball. The scene was then set for Gazza to have the final say; drifting in from the left he drove a left foot shot past Coton.

Take a look at the youtube video of the game above. This period for me, as a 9 year old, was a halcyon time to be a football supporter. Teams kept kits for more than one season, games were almost always played on a Saturday afternoon, the digital clock above the dug outs in the West Stand, terraces on Paxton Road and goalposts with stansions.

I've always been amused by the bloke with the long hair after the Gazza goal; he's either a City fan or totally out of it!

Following this game we made a really good start to the season going into November in the top 3 with Liverpool and Arsenal. However league results tailed off, Gazza needed a hernia op and the club's financial situation took it's toll. However the magic of the year ending in a '1' followed suit as we went on to win the FA Cup for a then record 8th time beating Nottingham Forest in the Final after beating Arsenal 3-1 in the Semi. Happy Days!
 
Last edited:
Maltese Falcon said:
Precisely - meaning that, other than in games against the bottom 3, our 4 - 2 - 3 - 1 has been a total failure since the win against Swansea two months ago... and you do not feel we should look at possible alternatives?
Click to expand...

A back 3 doesnt suddenly make us more attacking or stable at the back. It would mean Fazio would be left to bring the ball out as he would be the extra man in the centre.

Our bad results at home main mainly (not always) have been due to us not being able to break teams down. Playing a extra defender doesnt solve that, especially as rose seems to be better attacking from deep and in particular cutting inside. Defensively a lot of the issues we have had are from wide this season with the RM in particular not helping back to cover im not sure i trust any of our wingers to provide cover to Yedlin or Rose if they were caught up field.

By playing 3 at the back you are asking even more tactically from your players. Its no coincidence that Man U who are the biggest team who play 3 at the back do it

A) with 2 midfielders as the winger backs
B) with carrick who can play the ball from midfield

When carrick hasnt been in the team they have gone through bad spells. they have lost last 3 without him.
 
Maltese Falcon said:
Precisely - meaning that, other than in games against the bottom 3, our 4 - 2 - 3 - 1 has been a total failure since the win against Swansea two months ago... and you do not feel we should look at possible alternatives?
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think the issue has been the system. My opinion is our players are mostly crap, stupid, lazy or a combination of the three, I fear a change to a back 3 would merely complicate things further, assuming we have not been coaching it all season (if we have then the argument is different). Our CB's are not going to have a clue how to cope with City as it is, better only 2 headless chicken than 3 imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back