That’s probably because you’ve chopped half my sentence off that focuses on a large number of good players that our manager is by and large not playing towards their strengths. Dier playing over Sanchez is primarily because Davies and Lenglet have played well this season and it’s only right they keep their places in the XI especially whilst Romero’s out, Dier moving a spot over facilitates that. That’s not really trying anything special, that’s just Conte using a bit of common sense, something he’s not doing in other positions because he’s being too stubborn. There’s about 3 alternatives to Sessegnon at LWB and about 4 alternatives to Emerson at RWB. There’s at least one alternative to not be starting or bringing on (an injured) Lucas. It’s not about comparing squads with City, it’s about currently acknowledging that there’s enough quality in this squad to have earned us more points than it’s got whilst also being capable of playing better than these laborious tactics show. Newcastle are about 9 months into Howe’s reign with a weaker squad, a lot less new players and are now above us, having also beaten us on our own patch. Utd spanked us under ten Hag and he’s been in the job 5 minutes. All managers outside of Pep are likely never going to have all the players they want and so it’s about picking better/ different options when current ones aren’t working out and working on a system and/ or style that suits the players - Conte largely done this last season, yet with a better and bigger squad this season, he’s now the one holding it back.
Measuring people by mistakes alone is not sensible. Risk taking is essential to being excellent at anything and taking more risk means making more mistakes. What you actually need to measure is the number of successes net of the number of failures. That is probably easiest for goalkeepers but not really straightforward at all for any other position. Obviously better players will come out better on sensible measures so obviously we should upgrade anyone we can afford to. But I think most on here entirely underestimate how difficult it is to get players better than say Dier and Davies. If you look round at players who cost 40m I reckon only about half of them would actually be an improvement.
No, it isn't. "and taking more risk means making more mistakes." and potentially far greater costs when the errors actually occur.
Advocating the use of Spence as if it is stupid of Conte not to does expose the limitations of the advocates rather than Conte. Here is a player new to the club who has not played in the PL and yet somehow, he is to be preferred over Emerson & Doherty and that's based on what? The crucifixion of Sessegnon and Emerson serves no purpose as far as I can see. They are the players we have, and both are clearly trying. Opinions are one thing, but dogmatic statements are a different order. The criticism of Emerson starts before kickoff, what's that about? It seems we have to have a fall guy to blame for not winning every game and when that doesn't work, we turn on the manager. The small matter of no Richarlison, Kulusevski or Son has to be taken into account and that affects the whole team not just the front end. The modern wing back position has to be one of the most difficult areas of the game to carry out with complete success, it is after all a compromise of defence and attack with the emphasis on defence. The player has a constant choice to make throughout the game of where to be and the success of these decisions will depend on other players in the team. These positional decisions will vary according to the players on the field, and none of this seems to be taken into account in the slating of our WB's which also happened, amongst others, to Bale, Trippier, and even Walker who according to some couldn't cross a ball. We have one of the best managers in the world guiding our team and deciding on formations, his record speaks for itself and the fact that after just 1 year, in a project that he warned from the start would take at least 2 - 3 seasons, he is having to ask for patience despite having made top 4 last season and we are still up there so far this season, is pretty disgraceful IMO.
An oddly dogmatic statement. There is almost nothing you can do that has zero risk. In financial markets increased risk tends to lead to greater returns but you should avoid taking risks that would lead to harm you cannot cope with. There seems to be a need to identify the optimal risk point and I don’t think it can be zero.
I often agree with alot of what you say and to be honest I like Dier but he is costing us. His mistake yesterday ( which was a mistimed header as the ball came off his shoulder ) cost us the game. Newcastle bought Dan Burn from Brighton for £13m. He would not have made the Dier error.
I don't fully disagree with these points. Our performances haven't been good enough, even when results have. We should have 4-6 more points than we currently do (+3 v Toon, +1 v Pool, +1 v United and maybe +2 v West Ham). But I don't agree with your points about our squad. We have 3 alternatives to Sess at lwb but none of them are more than a medium upgrade on his overall output. Sess is probably relegation side quality. Davies out of position is midtable. Perisic is top 8 but not top 4 imo, and he would have started there had we not suffered an injury crisis. Over on the other flank, the situation is worse. Yes there are alternatives to Royal, but they are marginal upgrades. He is probably a Championship standard player. Lucas out of position is probably relegation side. Doherty let's be honest is no better than midtable. Spence is a complete unknown who granted had a handful of good games against PL opposition when the pressure was completely off in the cup last season, but we don't see him in training and currently our logic is that he "can't be any worse" than the other options. It is hardly an ideal situation. And herein is the rub: Instead of slight, incremental increases in quality, we need to go for the jugular again and again and massively upgrade on certain players. What @PowerSpurs said isn't a rule of thumb. Sometimes it does cost an arm and a leg to do this. Sometimes it can be done through smart and timely recruitment. To put it differently: Sanchez to Romero = Upgrading a relegation standard player with a top 4 standard. Winks to Bentancur = Upgrading a relegation player with a top 4 one. Lucas to Kulu = Upgrading a bottom half player with a top 4 one. These are the upgrades that in the long run will reap dividends. Sess to Perisic = Relegation to top 8 Royal to Doherty = Championship to mid table Royal/Doherty to Spence = A complete unknown The difference is obvious. We need another few windows to make it. As for comparing us to Newcastle, we're talking about a team with sky high optimism since their oil money take over, with a fanbase literally salivating every time they climb a place in the league after years of dross. They have no European football and zero pressure in most games. They are not too dissimilar to Leicester in 2016 in that regard. And they still needed two howlers and Simone level time wasting to beat us. Give Conte and Fabio more time. A change of manager at this stage would be disastrous, not least of all because there is no one out there right now.
You clearly don't read your own match threads or even the posts on here from your own supporters. Only a Liverpool fan could watch that match and come away from it feeling hard done by.
Marginal upgrades are better to go with even on the short term more so than persisting with a player who continuously disappoints. Even untried alternatives are worth giving a go to because realistically there's a lot of potential upsides and little disappointment to be had, because if they're just as bad we know the state of play. It's been said before but it really is bordering on insanity persisting with some of these options. I think you've been haste in writing Perisic off so soon, especially when for most of the season he's been recovering from the injury he got last season. I know the whole "posters on my wall" comment can be hit back but we've just almost reached the halfway mark of the season and even below par he's provided some huge assists for the club, in which without them, we'd be around 8th at the moment and almost certainly out of the Champions League. A top form Perisic is one of the best WBs in European football let alone the Premier League and I'm feeling confident we'll see it soon. I don't think you can be saying we can't compare/ compete with City and then provide excuses for Newcastle currently being above us. It can't be one rule for one and one for another. Them not having European football should also not be an excuse for a big six club like us. Paratici's delivered a stronger squad this season than the one that hit five past them last season yet somehow we're playing considerably worse. I'm more than happy with the work Fabio is doing, he's done his part by delivering some top, top signings as well as boosting the squad. It's the manager I'm losing patience with for not utilising some of these signings and the squad in general well enough whilst deploying a tactic this season that makes most people wish they never liked football. The thing with Conte as well is that we're unsure how long he'll be here, it's all well and good telling us to have patience and the need for more signings but his deal essentially ends this summer, we have the option to extend but I think all parties need to agree too it, if he committed to a long/ longer term contract then perhaps buying into the project and what he says will be easier to understand and persist with.
1. There is NOTHING you can do that has zero risk. So any construct based on it by definition meaningless. 2. Your claim was that "excellence" is associated with risk taking. Nothing of "excellence" I do in my day job has anything to do with risk
A more precise statement of my claim is that the pursuit of excellence isn't consistent with having zero mistakes. Because to achieve excellence you need to push boundaries and that won't always work.
The Laws of the Game are written in such a way that the referee can interpret one of these to be a foul and the other not and neither is a clear error and so cannot be overturned by the VAR whichever way around the decision is made. The Laws are the source of the problem not the referees or the VAR process.
I disagree. The officials are the problem. They're openly biased towards some teams and refuse to overrule their mates. The Cancelo decision was correct. The Alexander-Arnold one was not.
Of course VAR can overturn the decision otherwise what is it there for and why do other decisions get overturned. The analysis on sky showed the view the ref had and from that view he may be excused for not giving it, the VAR can see the decision from the angle that clearly shows the push and he should have got the ref to review it on the screen.
The Law says A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: • charges • jumps at • kicks or attempts to kick • pushes • strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt) • tackles or challenges • trips or attempts to trip That is terrible wording. A push should be a foul....it doesn't need any consideration by the referee. Then the VAR could simply show the ref he had missed a push. As it is there is discretion for the ref to say even if there was a push it wasn't careless so it isn't a foul. That allows the bias that @PleaseNotPoll complains about.
Unfortunately for Spurs, this would have been a decision negatively impacting Varpool, and like so many other decisions against their darlings, the officials botted it again.
A player might push to avoid being fouled (we see forwards holding off defenders in this way) Two players vying for the ball will often jump into each other - and push each other to prevent the opponent gaining an advantage Players often charge at set plays or for example, when a forward and goalkeeper race towards a 50/50 ball Football is a contact sport and most of what goes on in the game could be interpreted as a foul. If it was, it would ruin the game as a spectacle. The problem then is that interpreting where the boundaries lie in these marginal situations becomes subjective. And that leads to inconsistency. Some decisions are however more clear cut and the push by TAA on Sessegnon was definitely a foul.
I think the ‘clear and obvious’ line is a difficult one, even though I’m not even sure it’s specified in the laws, it may be more of an understanding. But we view the officials on the pitch and the VAR as separate in football, whereas I think they should be viewed as one unit - using video technology should not be about preserving the integrity of the on-pitch ref’s decision, but about making the correct decision based on what happens on the pitch. How that wasn’t given as a pen yesterday is beyond me.
