Spurs v Swans

[keith gatebroth]

You're spot on with the closing down of players,both full backs guilty all season of standing off and allowing the crosses to rain in.
Bus left the stadium at 1pm and arrived at White Hart Lane at 7.50 pm,so missed the kick off,horrendous traffic jams in London and it ruined the trip really. We could have travelled to Sunderland or Newcastle,our furthest away grounds, in less time,what a horrible ground it is to get to in North London.
I was surprised to see that we'd packed the midfield,only one winger again,which gave the Spurs wide players a field day up and down the flanks,Rose and Walker punishing us time after time.
Probably the best side won,as after a fairly even first half,Spurs tore into us second half. At the end we scored a late goal and could have had a few more,as too late a sub Montero rang rings round Walker. Only a brilliant save by Lloris stopped us sharing the points,and if the game had only gone on another ten minutes we could possibly have won this,such was Montero's impact. Unlucky with Siggy's free kick that hit the post,and his through on goal offside call that wasn't,and a great save from Shelvey's piledriver.
I was surprised that Shelvey was subbed,which removed our most threatening player. Most disappointing player was Oliveira,who did absolutely nothing,couldn't win a ball in the air and lost it every time on the ground,he looked like a Shechter Mark 2,completely out of his depth.
Our trip consisted of being whisked into the ground for the match ,whisked back out again to catch the bus,only to get into another traffic jam,this time going out of London,no chance to catch your breath and get a pint and some chips there.
Eventually got back at 2 am with a numb bum and another defeat witnessed first hand,but not too disheartened after the terrific fight back that almost snatched the points.
Regarding Gomis,I was unaware of his condition,as were most,and there was a deathly hush around the ground when he collapsed and lay prostrate on the pitch,with a team of medics working on him,Spurs fans of course remembering the Muamba heart failure at this same ground. There was spontaneous clapping by all as he went off on a stretcher.

 

[bigkidderz]

After a huge post in the thread, "Narrower?", about how we are getting better defensively and our team is beginning to know their roles, after a solid first half, the team fell asleep for 30-35 mins in the second half! We were all over the place and it felt like Spurs were creating chances at will. The only drawback with defensive formations is going behind - it's very hard to know when to switch to an attacking formation to try and get back into it. Defensive formations are built around being level or in the lead. Generally, you don't score many goals if you're concentrating on defending. I was crying for Jeff to come on when we were 2-1 down as I could feel Spurs getting on top and knew it would get worse before long. Walker had a free run at Taylor all night because, until Jeff came on, he had absolutely nothing to do defensively. He had no wide man to mark. Lo and behold, their pressure told and they scored to go 3-1 and we still waited 10 mins to bring Jeff on. Then he comes on and we hardly gave him the ball until 85 mins. Then, in such little time he creates a goal and almost sets up another. To me, it was obvious that we needed him on sooner - I'd have said the same even if we'd snuck the draw at the end (great save by Lloris btw).

So, my assessment of the two turning points - Tottenham's 2nd and 3rd goals.

• The Mason goal was a simple case of panic at Eriksen being anywhere near our box. Yes, it was a lucky bounce into Mason's path off a good Williams tackle, but I'm not sure that Taylor needed to be coming towards the ball when Eriksen was in centre back territory and looking pretty well marshalled by Ash. Either way, he made a call and the bounce of the ball beat him, another day the tackle falls to one of our players and not straight to Mason. Mainly unlucky here, but I can't help but feel that Taylor made the space for Mason by not trusting Ash to deal with Eriksen.

• Townsend's goal was an utter joke piece of defending from Taylor though. In a 2-on-1 situation, you quite simply have to push to the ball and try and delay the pass. Taylor stood off and marked the second man, he essentially gave Townsend a free run at goal! Criminal! Me and brother couldn't believe what we'd witnessed. You press the ball, position to block the pass to delay it, and if he still manages to cut it back to Eriksen, well it's hardly your fault as a defender that you were left 2-on-1 - you stopped one player but he found the other. If you leave the man with the ball have a free run at goal, then it becomes your fault. You have to trust that your teammates are busting a gut to get back. You push the ball and then you need your teammates to get back and mark the man in the middle. Taylor didn't push or mark. By the time Townsend scored, all our players had got back, Eriksen was marked by Cork and Shelvey, and Naughton (?) even makes a challenge on Townsend - Taylor was hiding behind Fabianksi with his pants down neither marking anybody nor making a challenge. Considering that he was the only man back in the 2-on-1, that is criminal defending that would see him lambasted at amateur level football. You have to push the ball and trust that your teammates can get back. At the very least you must position yourself to block the pass and then try to usher Townsend away from goal. It's so poor that I'd move Naughton to left back and bring Rangel in for the next game. Defending like that can't go unpunished in my view - it's not sloppy, it's bad, amateur defending.

So, reading that back, from a defensive point of view, my finger of blame is firmly pointed at Taylor (at least regarding the goals).

 

[NorfolkSwan]

Can't argue with that BK. Taylor has been in for a fair bit of stick and people often stick up for him (rightly so often) but he does often make baffling decision defensively.

I can never quite work out if he's following the manager's instructions or not though, as he allows wide players so much space that I can only assume it's some kind of management instruction as any fullback worth his salt doesn't allow that...

Also re: Jeff not coming on sooner, I'm not sure he's yet back to full fitness...after 10mins of running he was proper blowing out his arse (true his style is incredibly explosive, so that's natural) so not sure he's 100% yet.

 

[Bob the slob]

a memory bump for you bob the slob

..................and was caught aiding and abetting a predatory outside source by covertly 'passing on' confidential reports and information provided to him in confidence in his capacity as manager and well paid employee.

A portion of the information he deceitfully passed on included in-depth scouting reports painstakingly compiled and provided by our 'European scouting network'. Your man freely gave all of it to an outside source with conflicting interests, his master, Tumulutu.

Tumulutu's intention, backed by his actions, was to knowingly subvert our business and standing in Europe, particularly the transfer market. You remember, he'd already been banned from our club for attempting to take control of our transfer business. What he wanted at that time was to aggressively gain a seat on the board through controlling ALL transfer transactions, for a fee of course, whether he was involved in or instigated the transfer of not. He thought we were fools, farm boys, unintelligent suckers ripe for exploitation. We weren't and we aren't, we've proved that time and again. We saw right through him, caught him and legally banned him from any interaction with our club and or facilities.

Upon receipt of the scouting reports and our 'list of interests' passed on to him by our two-faced manager, he cold called the agents of the players on the list telling them that we, Swansea City Football Club, was a 'dead club' destined for relegation and football with the cows.

He made a mistake though and contacted one agent who already knew to us as he had a player at our club. He asked the player, allegedly rhymes with Lamat, what was happening and whether he wanted to leave. After the call the distressed player went to Monk and Ash and they all took it to the board.

An extra-ordinary meeting was quickly called but the great man(ager), now caught with his chinos around his ankles, didn't respond to any emails or txts sent over the weekend, as the West Ham game, requesting his attendance. After the game he disappeared, running away to Paris as we've since found out. Subsequently he was dismissed in absentia and was notified, by email because he wasn't to be found, and an announcement was made to the press informing them of the dismissal.

On top of his dismissal the ex manager was legally banned from contacting Swansea City FC staff and players and from entering any and every facility associated with Swansea City FC, hence forth. Coincidentally, exactly the same ban given to his master, Tumulutu.

.....and the rest is history bob the slob, and the future?

We continue to grow and progress through hard work, honesty and integrity while our great ex-manager; so great he has received no, none, zero, nada offers to manage ANY top, middle, bottom, flight club in Europe, continues to rot in the sun.

You dance with the enemy bob the slob, just thought I'd remind you

Much of what you have written is in faux legalese - but unless you have minutes appears to come from unsubstantiated reports.

After a little digging I'd suggest your comment
'and was caught aiding and abetting a predatory outside source by covertly 'passing on' confidential reports and information provided to him in confidence in his capacity as manager and well paid employee.' is either,
a) libellous as it is more than a spin on the events as they are reported
b) both Laudrup and his agent, 'Tumulutu' should have been prosecuted.

None of what you wrote about Tumulutu is particularly relevant. Tumulutu over stepped the mark in terms of of what was required in Swasnea and the Premier League but is not uncommon on the continent and South America. Huw made public statements in the autumn of 2013, regarding Tumulutu which Laudrup endorsed. But, Tutumlu has always insisted it was because money wasn't being made available for transfers. Is it a coincidence, that it was only after Tutumlu initially kicked up an almighty stink, that money was found to buy Wilfried Bony. Don't twist this please, I have no doubt Tutumlu got too big for his boots but to label him (and Laudrup) a criminal is a dangerous claim.
For example - 'European scouting network' at Swansea City
'Swansea City chairman Huw Jenkins has revealed how their scouting network works.
Jenkins admits he's essentially a director of football for manager Michael Laudrup.
He told the Daily Mail: "I do the director of football role,’ he said. ‘I have a daily input and have done for 10 years. We make decisions together, there is never any disrespect or going behind backs. For example, we have a British scouting network run by the club and his (Laudrup’s scouting team) look around Europe. We then discuss targets. It works well."
Scouting networks are just that, networks with scouts bringing the attention of players to clubs. If anyone shared information about a player or players who might suit a club's requirements, or a player's agent had approached someone in the scouting network, that name would be passed on to possible interested parties. To refer to anyone as 'two faced'
After falling out with Jenkins Tumulutu may or may not have acted as you describe but there is no direct evidence he did.
Sousa fell foul of the same claim that money wasn't available for a striker, Jenkins' response was to bring a way passed his sell by date and failed Championship player back from Bristol. Pattern anyone?

The situation you describe with 'lamat' (If it happened why not name the player?) could be true. A player who was not considered good enough to play regularly is asked if he wants to move and breaks down, sounds a if it could happen ... Seriously!

The time line regarding sackings is muddy to say the least. After a poor results against West Ham and five games in four weeks Laudrup gave the squad, including himself two days off, and he went to Paris to visit his daughter. A far cry from, 'After the game he disappeared, running away to Paris as we've since found out.' this was known at the time. Results had not been great, but nor were they any where near as bad as is often suggested - After beating Fulham away at the end of November we only beat Newcastle and Fulham again the week before the West Ham game. We did draw against Hull at home and away to Norwich and Villa - games lost were to Man City, Everton (then 4th), Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd & Spurs. We had also played four cup games including a 2 - 1 win away to Man Utd. Given the number of Europa League games and Cup games we were were involved with our league losses are not out of keeping with results before or since.
Back to the time-line.
Had Laudrup been sacked before the calling of the extra-ordinary meeting or was it called to endorse what Jenkins had already done? There was mention at the time of 'phone calls' on the Sunday and Laudrup not answering calls. But, who said what, to whom and when remains unclear from official sources.
What we do know is Monk, without Ludrup's agreement, was already being lined up to take over, "Club captain Garry Monk, whose imminent appointment to the coaching staff is believed to have annoyed Laudrup, has taken temporary charge alongside coach and club legend Alan Curtis." (Daily Mirror) but unsubstantiated by the people mentioned.
In my opinion, if Monk wanted to take up a coaching role, Laudrup was wrong to be annoyed and should have welcomed the move. Unless there were already stirrings and as we know Monk has form.

On first reading your piece appears quite knowledgable, but it's not. It's an interpretation of the truth; some of which has, to my memory - but more mysteriously to the knowledge of others - is completely new.
What is telling is that Jenkins had to cover his impetuosity by paying Laudrup over £4 mn compensation. Had your allegations of criminal actions been true the club would have had to pay nothing. (As much as I hate to draw a comparison but McKay at Cardiff has not received a penny compensation from Cardiff for acting stupidly but not, as far as we have heard to date, criminally.)

There is no discredit in saying the manager wasn't performing as we expect and is therefore being released - given his huge pay off it is possible a compensation package might have been less than what appears to be 'hush money'.

 

[Bob the slob]

Can't argue with that BK. Taylor has been in for a fair bit of stick and people often stick up for him (rightly so often) but he does often make baffling decision defensively.

I can never quite work out if he's following the manager's instructions or not though, as he allows wide players so much space that I can only assume it's some kind of management instruction as any fullback worth his salt doesn't allow that...

Also re: Jeff not coming on sooner, I'm not sure he's yet back to full fitness...after 10mins of running he was proper blowing out his arse (true his style is incredibly explosive, so that's natural) so not sure he's 100% yet.

I have been moaning on about Taylor all season but think he's done quite well in his last few games (last night he wasn't great but no worse than others and no worse than other definers have fared against Spurs). I am of the same opinion about leaving space but once the attacker has the ball, and you're face to face, standing off isn't a bad option - it forces the attacker to have to make the move, you stay in control of position, a pass / cross can go astray and needs another player to react (that occupies a second player) and there is a good chance a front on tackle will result in giving away agree kick. But as you suggests, that wouldn't be required if the full back was closer to the attacker before they received ball.
I also thought Shelvey had his best age of the season!

 

[bigkidderz]

I have been moaning on about Taylor all season but think he's done quite well in his last few games (last night he wasn't great but no worse than others and no worse than other definers have fared against Spurs). I am of the same opinion about leaving space but once the attacker has the ball, and you're face to face, standing off isn't a bad option - it forces the attacker to have to make the move, you stay in control of position, a pass / cross can go astray and needs another player to react (that occupies a second player) and there is a good chance a front on tackle will result in giving away agree kick. But as you suggests, that wouldn't be required if the full back was closer to the attacker before they received ball.
I also thought Shelvey had his best age of the season!

Yeah, to be fair, standing off in a lot of situations isn't a bad idea as (a) you're less likely to be beaten, and (b) you're less likely to dive in and give a free kick away. But, as an incident by itself, I just can't condone him standing off Townsend in that 2-on-1 and giving the man with the ball a free run at goal. When you're the last man, pressure the ball and try and force the ball player to make a mistake or shoot from distance. Trust your teammates to get back and mark the inside man. Townsend had a free run at goal courtesy of Taylor. Naughton got back, but when you're sprinting back like that, it's so easy for Townsend to cut inside as Naughton just can't slow down fast enough.

General play-wise, I didn't think Taylor was that bad. But, he made a couple of big howlers that stand out for me. For the same reason that 2 goals can make a quiet striker's game into a man-of-the-match, two defensive howlers can make Taylor's generally okay game into a stinker.

 

[Terror ball]

Not going to moan as Spurs away is a game where a point is a bonus but these are my thoughts, not all positive...

1st half
We kept our shape and discipline very well. We didn't keep the ball so well, which has become the norm, often the move broke down due to Shelvey playing a Hollywood ball....but here's the thing, despite him not being my favourite player, I'm not going to criticise him for this. Some of his long range passes nearly came off and, as the away team, this was a strategy and a risk worth taking.
The players seem to be well drilled in the tactics.
E.g.
In the 'narrower' thread I put forward my opinion that this formation gave more space to the opposition full-backs and that this was a risk that would have to be managed.
In the 1st half last night Walker made several aggressive off the ball runs from right-back. We picked up his run, we anticipated the pass and shut down space very well....most encouragingly, on at least 2 occasions, we then counter attacked the space he had vacated (Routledge switching to left-wing) which not only makes the full-back think twice before making runs into the box again but also dragged their centre-half out of position to follow Routledge.
Unfortunately we aren't quite as fluid going forward in this formation and aren't quite executing the final pass well enough, often enough, yet.....one time we recovered the ball and played a long one up to Routledge on the left (out of position centre-half had followed him and was up his arse) and Routledge played a crisp pass along the deck to Ki before spinning and attacking the space in behind...a quick pass into the channel (a one-two) would have had them scrambling against Routledge's pace and created opportunities for someone to find space in the box....but unfortunately Ki dwelled on it, shaping to play a safer pass before losing it under pressure.
So our counter attacking needs to be more swift with less touches on the ball BUT it is encouraging that the players were trying to counter attack in the space left by the full-back.

2nd half
They really came at us all guns blazing at the start of the second half and we did not deal with it well, poor defensive decisions, poor concentration and unforced errors on the ball.
They are a good team and we won't always defend well but the worrying thing for me....and this is a theme this season....is Monk's unwillingness to try and change our shape or personnel to try and deal with it....and when he made a sub he took the wrong bloke off!

In short;
- Subs too late
- Didn't use all his subs
- Shouldn't have took Shelvey off
- Should have taken Oliviera off
- No attempt at changing our formation to a more attacking one to give Spurs something else to think about other than their own attacking

 

[Stumpy]

bob the slob

Your reply is simply a line by line retrieval of my post. You have added nothing but instead clung on to every line reversing it without true explanation. Other than somehow adding Malky McKay to help defend your man, as a disclaimer, you've added nothing more. Again your defence is simple attack Huw Jenkins, Garry Monk with a little contempt now towards Jordi Amat, What has he done all of a sudden?
You leave me with little to counter or comment on without repeating myself and this makes it difficult to respond to you, touche.

I would point out after reading your essay that you blatantly display little if any knowledge regarding legal concerns surrounding 'consideration', 'contract law' vs 'civil law', 'criminal law' and the criminal justice system. You continually mix them up reducing your opinion to a state of gibberish. I'm not trying to put you down bob the slob just pointing out the fact that the bedrock your response is built on is very soft indeed.

Civil Law is not Criminal Law is not Contract Law and the whole episode surrounding our ex manager occurred in the domain of Contract Law and therefore subject to the definitions, restraints and conclusions bound within. Here's a link to help you

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

Hopefully now after visiting the link you will see that your continued argument of "why wasn't he prosecuted" or referring to criminal activity is utterly wrong. Civil Law (society) and Criminal Law (the state), although different, protect our society as a whole, that's top to bottom, you and me. Contract law exists on its own merit and has been honed and designed solely to represent, protect and defend business i.e. Money and the interests of involved parties.

See anything Lord Denning has been involved in and for Libel see McLibel to discover why most parties chose not to enter the libel arena.

In your confusion you compare the compensation of our case against that of Malky McKay's. You state that McKay received nothing, but his case is ongoing so no decision has been made, and that we paid out £4m, so the question, how do you know this? old not606 posts not accepted.

There is a huge difference between these cases that you've failed to observe and or understand. McKay was dismissed for allegedly committing an unlawful act recently upgraded and now defined in the statutes of Criminal Law.

Breaking a criminal law, allegedly making racist or sexist comments in a public domain, put McKay irrevocable in breach of contract. There fore, if his actions are proven, could be summarily dismissed with no expectation of compensation. The case, as I have said, is ongoing so no final decision has reached so you cannot say that he received no compensation. Our case entirely concerns contract Law only.

You say that I stated that 'criminal actions had been made or taken'. Point this out to me, I did not say this anywhere or at any time as far as I recall and it was you who actually said that. Again you display a lack of knowledge and understanding of what it is you are talking about which denigrates any opinion you have as you consistently confuse criminal activity with breach of contract, the bedrock of your response.

You say:
both Laudrup and his agent, 'Tumulutu' should have been prosecuted
- wrong, you are confusing contract law with the criminal justice system bob the slob

I have no doubt Tutumlu got too big for his boots but to label him (and Laudrup) a criminal is a dangerous claim
- wrong I attached no such labels, you did. Again you display a lack of knowledge and understanding but now you've visited the above link you know better now and can amend your accusation accordingly.

You say
some of which has, to my memory - but more mysteriously to the knowledge of others - is completely new.
- What others bob the slob? PM bandits may be? I don't see any response, other than yours, suggesting this. I may well get responses from now, after that fact, but other than you I see none. So I question you, who? when? where? or was it in an email?

You say
What is telling is that Jenkins had to cover his impetuosity by paying Laudrup over £4 mn compensation.
- and what I'm asking bob the slob is, Show us the money. Where did you learn of this payment?

You say
Had your allegations of criminal actions been true the club would have had to pay nothing.
- Wrong yet again bob the slob, I have made no such allegation allegation, you did. Conclusion made yet again with lack of knowledge and understanding of what it is you are saying. I refer you to the above link for clarification.

You say
There is no discredit in saying the manager wasn't performing as we expect and is therefore being released
I agree, absolutely none bob the slob, good point well made

You Say
- given his huge pay off it is possible a compensation package might have been less than what appears to be 'hush money'.
- You must explain your meaning here as this makes no sense.
'might have been less than what it appears to be 'hush money'. Could be the reason why your man said nothing and made himself look foolish in his much awaited much advertised press conference.
I wonder why Tumulutu, who was supposed to attend, stand him up and not show? My personal view is because neither he nor his charge had anything to say in their favour on the matter of your mans dismissal. I further suggest that the conference was only called so your man could keep up appearances at home.

One thing I do still wonder about though bob the slob, is why this alleged 'great manager', destined for a top European club according to himself, remains in Qatar. Surely, by now, someone must have recognised his talents, may be they have and that's why he's still rotting in the sun?

 

[DragonPhilljack]

I bet Bob believes in fairy stories too!...................

 

[DragonPhilljack]

Can't argue with that BK. Taylor has been in for a fair bit of stick and people often stick up for him (rightly so often) but he does often make baffling decision defensively.

I can never quite work out if he's following the manager's instructions or not though, as he allows wide players so much space that I can only assume it's some kind of management instruction as any fullback worth his salt doesn't allow that...

Also re: Jeff not coming on sooner, I'm not sure he's yet back to full fitness...after 10mins of running he was proper blowing out his arse (true his style is incredibly explosive, so that's natural) so not sure he's 100% yet.

I have defended Taylor from criticism on here throughout the season, but even I am disappointed in his Lazy defending, take for example the first Manu goal, Taylor had the opportunity to block the shot, but what does he do? Like a big girls blouse, he jumps up out of the way and turns his back? I've seen better defending at Underwood park, yesterday again he stands off his player far too much, and while certain conditions you would stand off a player, but not when the attacking player is getting the ascendancy over you, all he seems to do lately is come into the tackle late, and commit a foul, how he never gave away a penalty the other day I do not know, and he is getting very annoying with the way he not only stands off players but also back tracks at the same time allowing the attacking player to come into our box, for me Taylor is now a weak link at the back, and unless he starts getting smart and brave again, I see him being replaced next season.............



PS: Garry Monk disappointed me with his poor decision making again with subs, Montero should have come on as soon as we went behind, Shelvey should never have been taken off, and did we use all our subs?

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

PS: Garry Monk disappointed me with his poor decision making again with subs, Montero should have come on as soon as we went behind, Shelvey should never have been taken off, and did we use all our subs?

Oliveira had to come on early because of Gomis' collapse.

 

[Stumpy]

Agree with you re subs Dragon but I think he made his mistake in selection. Lack of flair on the bench hamstrung us when we were chasing the game.

• Amat - no game changer
• Britton - no game changer
• Emnes - off the pace due to injury. Will be a good for us when fit and able imo, been unlucky so far.
• Castro Oliveira - starting to remind me of Alvarez, time will tell but no game changer imo
• Montero - the only man capable of tearing it up, changing the game and he almost did. I got a man crush
• Rangel - Defence
• Tremmel

Not much to choose from when your chasing the game and we seem lost without a fit Dyer to fall back on.

Taylor, not the quickest or most agile which is OK if he's playing as a dedicated full-back where he can nullify his inadequacies through anticipation and positioning. His problem is that he's asked to play a pseudo wing-back role which highlights his lack of pace and agility and is why he is occasionally a 'step behind', lets be honest out of position, when defending a break or as part of a quick attacking break.

Naughton better imo, but again he's a full-back being asked to take on supporting wing-back duties in attack. I think Naughton is a better player than Taylor at this time so appears to be coping better.

 

[DragonPhilljack]

Oliveira had to come on early because of Gomis' collapse.

Forgot Gomis going off, so we did use all subs, still Monk should have brought on Monty sooner, we might then have got something from the game, it was so much oneway traffic from Spurs second half, and Monk should have seen this, far too slow to react in my view..............

 

[NorfolkSwan]

Ironically Rangel of 2-3 years back would be ideal for that wing-back role. Actually I wouldn't mind him playing on the wing if we revert to a wider formation with Montero on the other side...?

 

[Stumpy]

It would "APPEAR" that it's back to 9th place then.

and the bitter wibbler flies his true colours

 

[No Kane No Gain]

You guys just seemed to be caught between 2 yesterday. First half you had numbers back and were narrow, hitting balls in behind on the break, which worked to an extent but there was some signs that if we kept at it the chances would come. At the beginning of the second half you seemed to want to make a strong start and push us back but that only allowed us more space to sweep forward in numbers, which is what we do best. After we scored the third I thought you guys looked a bit lost and out of ideas for awhile and we really just ran rampant up until the Sigurdsson goal.

I'd like to think it was more us making you look bad but I think it's more that we took advantage of your mistake in becoming too open. Still, it made for a more entertaining game than the final with Chelsea on Sunday.

Anyway, good luck with the rest of the season and if you wouldn't mind taking some points off Liverpool and Arsenal along the way, it would be much appreciated

 

[swanseaandproud]

Our side in fact the whole squad is made up of two or three quality players,some good players who can perform but are not consistent enough and some mediocre players that would never be included in quality sides like spurs, so we are fighting an up hill battle before a ball has been kicked. How we have performed this season and the position we are in is a tribute to monk and his coaching side getting these mixture of individual talents to grind out results. Its a hell of a job when you dont have the quality that the bigger clubs have so i wont criticize individuals if they make a mistake. ..Come the end of the season we need to off load some players and replace them with more quality that will see us staying in the premiership for a very long time......

 

[No Kane No Gain]

Our side in fact the whole squad is made up of two or three quality players,some good players who can perform but are not consistent enough and some mediocre players that would never be included in quality sides like spurs, so we are fighting an up hill battle before a ball has been kicked. How we have performed this season and the position we are in is a tribute to monk and his coaching side getting these mixture of individual talents to grind out results. Its a hell of a job when you dont have the quality that the bigger clubs have so i wont criticize individuals if they make a mistake. ..Come the end of the season we need to off load some players and replace them with more quality that will see us staying in the premiership for a very long time......

It's the same for us compared to sides that are a step above us. The encouragement for us at the moment is that so many of our current first 11 are so young but even then it only takes a few bids from the big money lot to knock us backwards again. Money doesn't guarantee anything but it does cover more mistakes and that's why we see such a consistent order at the top, we'd have to outperform those sides for several years to compete with them long term and it's the same for yourselves, Southampton and West Ham in terms of getting up to being regulars in Europe.

I must admit I thought there was still a lot of question marks over Monk at the start of the season but he's done some impressive work to get you(hopefully) back in the top half. Plenty of sides in the past have done well, had a bad season and then just slipped away(Newcastle, Fulham, Villa) so fairplay to him for getting you guys in a position to bounce straight back to where you were. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned the pragmatic tactics and that's just what it is from Monk, he's approached it realistically and intelligently so far.

Bony definitely needs replacing but there's a good base of the squad there, elsewhere it's just a case of trying to take a few gambles and hoping one or two of them can come in and make the same kind of impact that Bony and Sigurdsson have had,

 

[Terror ball]

Agree with you re subs Dragon but I think he made his mistake in selection. Lack of flair on the bench hamstrung us when we were chasing the game.

• Amat - no game changer
• Britton - no game changer
• Emnes - off the pace due to injury. Will be a good for us when fit and able imo, been unlucky so far.
• Castro Oliveira - starting to remind me of Alvarez, time will tell but no game changer imo
• Montero - the only man capable of tearing it up, changing the game and he almost did. I got a man crush
• Rangel - Defence
• Tremmel

Not much to choose from when your chasing the game and we seem lost without a fit Dyer to fall back on.

Taylor, not the quickest or most agile which is OK if he's playing as a dedicated full-back where he can nullify his inadequacies through anticipation and positioning. His problem is that he's asked to play a pseudo wing-back role which highlights his lack of pace and agility and is why he is occasionally a 'step behind', lets be honest out of position, when defending a break or as part of a quick attacking break.

Naughton better imo, but again he's a full-back being asked to take on supporting wing-back duties in attack. I think Naughton is a better player than Taylor at this time so appears to be coping better.

....but didn't he select the bench?
If Emnes isn't fit enough to make a contribution from the bench then why pick him?
Why not give Kenji Gorre a shot? Why not Grimes?

 

[Terror ball]

Forgot Gomis going off, so we did use all subs, still Monk should have brought on Monty sooner, we might then have got something from the game, it was so much oneway traffic from Spurs second half, and Monk should have seen this, far too slow to react in my view..............

Sub 1: Oliviera for Gomis
Sub 2: Montero for Shelvey
Sub 3: ????????