I don't get this reasoning at all. The high line is a consequence of the pressing game - if the forwards are higher up the field everyone else has to be too or the opposition get space to run at the defence. If done properly it should lead to fewer opportunities for the opposition to pass through the defence as their players get less time on the ball (and less of the possession too). When it doesn't work, you might occasionally be saved by having a very fast defender but in most situations Dawson will be protected better by the pressing game. The thing that really scares me with Dawson is having people run at him with the ball which the high line will reduce.
The thing that scares me most about Dawson and in fact our entire back line is the individual errors, such as passing 10yds sideways to the most dangerous striker in the league.
There's many ways in which the opposition can break away despite a high pressing game. - all it takes is 1 pass, either on the floor or over the top. Our full backs are likely to be playing higher up the pitch as we press, leaving the 2 CB's. Those CB's are left having to keep an eye on the space left by the FB's, but also be aware that behind them is roughly 1/3 of the pitch. All it takes is a through ball into that space behind the Cb's, and slow defenders are exposed against (often) pacey strikers.
I didn't want Poch, but I'm not adverse to the appointment as I was to either that of AVB or Sherwoodie. Poch has proven, during his time with Saints, that he knows how to bring the best out of each player as well as the team. My worry is that the board won't back him if he has to ditch certain players for insubordination or ill-discipline. I can't imagine that there are any primadonnas at Saints, but we do have a couple, at least, at Spurs. It would be fantastic if Poch can get LOLdado and Lame-la firing.
Yes - I understand that - and that fast CBs are more use than slow ones in many situations. But the best way to protect a slow CB (who has other good properties like being strong an good in the air) is to stop the opposing team having time and space. You will lose more goals from through balls into space but a lot fewer from all other causes. But as I found when praising Gomes - people add up all the bad things and ignore all the advantages.
We have one Primadonna and Poch could not handle him. In fact, he handled him so poorly that our 15 million pound star striker barely played, then nutted our centreback, before disappearing back to Italy with Juventus. I wouldn't mind, but it is widely accepted that Poch brought him in because of their previous time together, and had assured people he could manage the rabid Italian... He is a fantastic manager, but my feeling is he is best at creating a bond in a young team with relatively small egos.
He was fantastic for you but he is still unproven so we will decide if hes a ""fantastic manager"". Although I agree that hes better suited to a team with less expectation and players that are easier to work with (such as young players), or players like Lambert who are just happy to be in the premier league.
So as you don't believe Pulis is right then effectively you're agreeing Pochetinno isn't right, for us.
Nope, because i didn't say what you said about Poch was what i believed. What i don't get is how you can be so anti-Poch and so pro-Pulis when most the stuff you criticise about Poch could also apply to Pulis. Poch plays better football than Pulis.
You could apply many views from manager (to manager) but for me its all about managers being a ""good fit"". Its like people saying Redknapp failed at Southampton so how could he be good enough to manage us to the champions league and two top four finishes? or Jol done a good job with us yet looked mediocre at Fulham. Thats why I don't get why people are trying to label Pochettino a fantastic manager (overall). He done well at one club, but he's unproven and I believe he isn't a right fit for us, plus he has been handed a 5 year contract yet has done nothing so far to warrant such a long term deal. As for Pulis, his palace team played decent football, counter attacking football so he has shown he adapts to each team he manages, rather then blindly having a universal style regardless of which team he takes over, and he has got Chamakh performing which in itself is worthy of a five year contract.
The Poch contract has clauses in it relating to performance according to many sources. Lets see how Pulis does in his 2nd season at Palace before we all declare him as the greatest manager ever. My gut feeling is they'll either be in a dog fight or playing some pretty crappy football
I really don't get all this Pochettino is the right/wrong fit as manager of Spurs. Personally, I would suspect he's more likely to be right than wrong. But only time will tell if he will succeed, or not. As to Pulis! Is this some kind of joke? Yes, he's done well at Palace. A clearly disorganised, dispirited, and probably not as fit as they could have been, bunch. If we were struggling against relegation, I could see the possible logic of the idea. But for the players that we have, and the traditions of the way Spurs play football, no way!...
what are these other causes, PS? i presume you mean, corners, free kicks, wing play resulting in a cross? etc etc?
Nice way to compliment Pulis as he got them fit, improved their team spirit and finished it off by winning premier league manager of the year. (in at the gym at 6am every morning to sort out the weak players) and has a better win rate then Poch, Martninez and Rodgers (who all managed little clubs). You can poke fun all you like (at the mention of Pulis) but he would have embraced the spurs traditions and brought back the good times.
Haha, me neither. I'm wondering when he'll eventually say the whole Pulis thing was a big joke on his part and we all fell for it
The only positive to having Pulis as manager is that we could revive the "he's got no hair but we don't care" Jol song.
