There's been a number of comments on here and in the media about our 2nd half drop-off. Lots of people are pointing to the subs as a reason for it, especially removing Son and Maddison. I don't think that this is accurate. I'm not sure what the issue was, but we just didn't really come out after the break. The press wasn't anywhere near as aggressive and we ceded the midfield to Fulham. I don't think that the subs helped, by any means, but the performance had already faded. I think that there was some confusion from the team about how to go about the game. Some fallback on bad, old habits, perhaps? We needed to continue to play Angeball and some Conte and Mourinho creeped back in.
it could even have been as simple as Ange telling the players to ease up and come down a couple of gears bearing in mind they have been on international duty. With the exception of Porto and Kulu, all of our other regular attack minded players were subbed with between 10 and 30 mins before the end. Ange obviously gets that we need to keep the starting 11 wrapped in cotton wool!
I believe that at 2-0 the players thought the game was done and dusted, and so eased down. That is raw unprofessional behaviour. "I think that there was some confusion from the team about how to go about the game. Some fallback on bad, old habits, perhaps?" I would contend that is more about no on-pitch leaders to cajole the players into maintaining focus and intensity. Without that, you need fear of Fergie-level hairdryer treatments from the manager to ensure that.
I think that we dropped off before we made it 2-0, to be honest. The crowd were trying to gee the team up just before Maddison scored. Romero was still on the pitch as an on-field leader, but he seemed to be doing it by example. He seemed to get higher and higher up the pitch as the game went on and had loads of the ball. A lot of the other players didn't seem to know whether or when to press or push up, though. The manager's mentioned his disappointment with the 2nd half, so I'm sure he knows the issue. Definitely something that needs to be addressed before Friday, though.
Ange doesn’t really do telling the players to slack off. He’s far more likely to sub even key players to keep the intensity up, like you say. He was pissed at Richy for showboating at one point and has gone off on the players for dropping the intensity in the second half before. I think a couple of factors affected the on ball performance. Veliz and Lo Celso aren’t as mobile as Madders and Son but still pressed. But when you don’t have any of Biss, Sarr, Maddison (or it’s fair to assume Bentancur) on the pitch, our ability to hold onto the ball in midfield is much less. Their replacements are less technically gifted, less comfortable receiving the ball under pressure, and don’t move it as well. Some of that is match sharpness and not having played a huge amount of PL football, but some of that is also technical quality. I thought Fulham’s change at half time also meant we had less time on the ball. We also missed Destiny when he went off.
This 100%! I commented at the time that we had started the 2nd half sloppy and well off the pace. And at this level you cannot afford to let up as almost all the teams in the PL are capable of getting the upper hand if given the opportunity. We were very lucky (thank you, Basey!) to get the 2nd or I think the outcome would have been different.
The subs exacerbated any issues we had though, and likely will continue to do so if we have to call on them to make actual impacts. If we're in a period where we can't control the game as well as we'd like with the likes of Maddison, Sarr, Son, Udogie etc, then the chances of that changing with the likes of Emerson, Lo Celso and Skipp coming on is next to zero. Our squad depth is really poor, though it's sod's law that two of the good squad players we do have are currently out for months.
I think that a lot of that was to do with the shape and our switch to become more defensive. Emerson isn't great at going forward on the right. He was totally useless on the left. I don't think that the forward subs were balanced, either.
You’re very much a work in progress. There are players I doubt Ange wants and it may take a few more transfer windows for him to shape his squad in the way he wants. But it’s clear that the signings of a decent ‘keeper, centre half, creative midfielder and the re-emergence of Bissouma and Son have given Spurs a strong core. The recruitment this summer was spot on. The players seem committed and motivated and the style of play suits their strengths. 23 points from the first 9 games - even if some results have been hard fought and unconvincing at times - is a fantastic return. There have been no slips ups. We are almost a quarter of the way through the league season already. It’s all gone very well for Spurs. Don’t expect perfection; just settle for doing better than everyone else so far.
I don't believe Ange intended to go defensive, as Hudd mentioned a few posts up he doesn't do the whole slacking off thing. The switch may have seemed defensive though because Ange had no choice with regards to replacements. Udogie is very technically sound and attack minded, where as Emerson embarrasses his Brazilian heritage by being so poor with the ball. Sarr is a very astute technical player with strong box to box attributes, where as Skipp is a ball winning midfielder. Maddison is our creative spark, Lo Celso is barely a footballer. Add in we were without Bissouma who helps control the midfield and play makes from deep, once the subs were made our midfield basically became a Conte one.
Yeah, it definitely wasn't the plan. Having Davies available to replace Udogie would've helped, though. Skipp going into the middle and Hojbjerg moving further right might've been better, too. I thought that Lo Celso was one of the only players looking to get on the ball and progress. He dropped too deep for my liking, but he was looking to attack and put people in. Gil coming on down the left and Johnson going through the middle would've helped. Maybe having the Welshman come on for Kulusevski, even?
Realistically it's a combination of factors On the one hand there's players like Hojbjerg and Skipp whose muscle memory is more along the lines of the last few seasons worth of Brexit Ball, which was certainly evident in Hojbjerg when he made appearances in the early games this season and his passing was exactly like it was last season while the rest of the team were playing an entirely different match to him On the other there's bringing a couple of players coming back from injury on at the same time in Johnson and Lo Celso, who while they might try to match the intensity of the players they replaced they wouldn't quite be synced up to their teammates - which is also a potential issue in general for the two, as Johnson arrived on Deadline Day while Lo Celso has been injured on and off since pre-season on top of being loaned for the last 18 months
After we got the 2nd goal early in the 2nd half they were there for the taking , so much space appeared and we wasted so many chances , on another day Fulham could have had 2 or 3 , I think Vicarios made more critical saves than Leno
Uncle Fabio's Magic Sack? No, wait, let me try and phrase that one so it doesn't sound a bit Yewtree...
I think when you have Skipp and Hojbjerg in a pairing or even a three it doesn’t really matter who plays exactly where, you sort of know it’s going to be industrious but lacking technical and creative elements. I thought Lo Celso done nothing, as he often does, gave it away once or twice and made a poor call on one of the counter attacks which just summed up his whole Spurs career to date. I’d have probably put Kulu in the middle and brought Gil on for Sarr. We know Kulu would’ve been able to bring the ball forward better than any of the midfielders that were on in the final 20 and then ideally Gil and Johnson could’ve aided Veliz. But all in all, barring one or two I just don’t think we have the right depth to adequately bring on for Ange. We need to start addressing it in January.
