I'm refering to the game today. Someone got this one badly wrong. Spurs looked a shambles and made an ordinary La'Arse side look reasonable. For instance:- 1) Why did Kranjar start in this game of such importance ?.--- He did not look fit and his first touch constantly let him down today. 2) Why defend so deep after going 2 nil up ?.--- We all know Spurs are a much better side when attacking from the mid of the park, thus keeping opponents under pressure. 3) Where was Lonnon ?.---His presence should of ensured more service to Ade and Saha against La' Arse's weak defence. 4) Why play Sandra and Parker in the same position at the same time ?--- Now we all know thats not posible but thats what it looked like to me. 5) Why take off Saha ?.---He was making good runs to and behind their weak defence thus pulling then out of position and looked the more likely of our front pairing to score from open play today. 6) Too much reliance on Parker---All of Spurs defensive line-up backed off and give their players much too much room after the Parker booking. These oddities contributed to todays defeat IMO and furthermore we were lucky we didn't beat 6 nil. It should of been so much different. Spurs looked like a total shambles by the end of the match. Players in complete disarray and out of position. Harry ?.
Nico played well for the first 30 minutes...the whole team imploded after the penalty. We were dominant until then... I agree about Sandro...I thought Lennon should have replaced Nicola to add speed on that flank...and thought that saha should have had another 15 mins but maybe he was injured. Just hope we get it out of our system quickly cos the last hour was dire for us.
Have to agree with everything here. We were far too narrow second half. This has been forced on us this season at times, but with Lennon on the bench why didn't we play our most sucessful formation? Krancjar, for me, brings little to the party; No pace, can't tackle and not good enough to play in Modric's position, he is a benchwarmer at best, but would probably look brilliant in Spain or Italy.
You were not actually dominant at all in the first 30. A fortunate goal and a penalty (that should not have been awarded). True we looked shaky at the back in those first 30, but to say Spurs were dominant at any point in that match is false. I think Parker and Modric were over run in the middle by Arsenal's 3, and the moment you brought on VDV you really collapsed - he cant have been fit - he did nothing.
You are so right Chirpy (Reply #3), in a game like todays., A fit Lennon has to be the better option., I can't understand why Kranjar was picked to play at all. Then there was those bewildering substitutions, I mean most of us could see it was a bounch of ad hoc stuff that didn't work together. I'm frankly amazed at the tactics used on this ocasion and very, very sad.
I'll defend Niko to a point, given he played the full 90 against Newcastle when we tore them apart and he wasn't a passenger. Also, in the past, when he gets a run in the team he often chips in with important goals. However, neither happened today. We had the initiative, but surrendered it far too easily. By inviting them to attack we allowed them back into the game and handed them the initiative, and never regained it (more about this in a moment...) We needed to regain initiative, so brought on VDV and Sandro for Kranjcar and Saha at half time. This is baffling, as Sandro is a player who stops the opponents playing rather than taking the game to them, whilst VDV may be a match winner but doesn't attack defenders like Lennon does. I even suggested before the game that Lennon and VDV would come on for Niko and Saha on the hour, which are better substitutions - plus Saha and Ade were more productive than VDV was. Whenever we play two defensive midfielders, we lose a lot of our forward momentum - Parker and Livermore against Stevenage being another example of this - because they stop the opponents playing, but that isn't the game we should have been playing in either case. I assume he's only got enough in the tank to play 60-70 minutes, but he could've done more at the start of the second half. We defaulted into thinking VDV would be the difference maker, but lost our nerveplayed our hand far too soon - and it turned out our hand wasn't that good. If we took the game to them, this wouldn't have happened. Not that I'm advocating playing an open, expansive game - but by letting the opponents have time on the ball and come at you, you make it difficult for yourselves by giving them the initiative. When a team takes initiative against teams such as Arsenal or Man Utd, they prosper - the best example being Barca making MUPLC look like FC United in the CL final last season - when they let them play, they're punished.
Croyland, You and I have come to the same conclusion on most of the above, except on Nico. He doesn't offer as much as Lennon., and he simply look out of sorts today despite the fact that he played at Newcastle for 90mins. I'm suggesting we should have started with Lennon and our first 11,. win the game., then experiment towards the end of it with Kranjar and Sandro.
The question should be what the substitutions would have been if we kept it to 2-1 at half time. For a start I can't see Sandro and VDV being introduced for the second half, with Lennon coming on for Niko on the hour and VDV for Saha on about 70 minutes (and maybe Sandro to avoid Parker getting a second booking), but in poker terms we went all in too quickly instead of letting it play out. I'm sure I read that Lennon isn't fully-fit, hence his late introductions against Newcastle and Stevenage, but he could've contributed something today. I also think we've gone back to the way of thinking that blighted us late last season where we believe VDV is the only player who can win us games, which explains his early introduction when he wasn't fully-fit.
As was said earlier, Kranjcar is no more than a useful squad player. There is no way he should have started today, unless there's something wrong with Lennon that we don't know about. The extra width he would have given, would have stretched the Goons defence, and provided more service to the front pair. Very poor tactically all round today from Harry & co.
At 2-1 second half; Lennon on for Niko. Saha should have played on 'till about 70mins, then bring on Defoe orf Saha. Towards the end of the game of the game (70- 80mins) bring on Sandra for Parker., this would have ensured we kept our attacking shape and we would not have handed the initiative to them by going to defensive too early on in the game. If they had played well enough, under these circumstances, the best they could achieve would be a draw form that 2-1 starting point. This was a very important game for both clubs, and could define the season in terms of the final league positions. I'm not suggesting that La' Arse will catch us, but we lost more then the mere game today. I now think we may well struggle to keep third spot.
Soooooo dissapointed with todays performance. If Lennon wasn't fit then fair enough but we sat back and let them come at us. King had a bad game....(it hurts to say this as he would always be (if fit) the first person on my team sheet. From the off we looked like a team that wanted somebody else to defend for them. Apart from Parker trying to run around and getting frustrated because when we had the ball we were hunted down in packs. Just like Barcelona do. Today we backed off and backed off and pointed at people making runs but didn't pick them up. It started at the corner where Bale pointed at Rosicky but didn't pick him up (Friedal made a great save and tipped it over the bar.) and then it happened when we didn't close down the cross that picked out Sagna and no one picked up Sagna and so on and on and on. I hope that this is a one off and they can put it behind them as this was a serious collapse that I haven't seen for a long time. (I didn't see the drubbing at home by City). I had a feeling something like this would happen to us today because everybody had been getting a little too cocky. I like a winning mentality but this should always come with professionalism: Today we just looked all at sea and Ade was well apart from the pen did you see him do anything. Phew i'll shut up now...and just keep reading the articles hoping beyond hope that somehow reality will change and we will have won the match.
The truth of it is, on the day, we were just better all over the pitch. I am not sure there is anything Spurs could have done against Arsenal in that mood. On another day it could have been different of course, but we just wanted it more today - and that is a very welcome departure from the way we have been playing this season.
I said the other day professional pride would see Arsenal raise their game, rather than continue with the shambolic displays we saw against Milan and Sunderland - we, on the other hand, didn't play with any. The complete and utter bollocking at Spurs Lodge tomorrow will probably be heard half a mile away...
Thare's plenty we could have done, Jayram. We could have turned up & competed to start with. We could have got our tactics right - we didn't . As I said earlier, just about everything we could have done wrong, we did. Your lot were up for it & we weren't. That is just not acceptable, which I trust wil be made clear to the players very shortly!
A lot of you are making Niko a scapegoat for this,but doesn't the true blame lay with Harry's tactics- got it wrong again in a big match. Before kick off there were rumours that King & Walker were not fit, adding to Lennon, Rafa & Ade not fully recovered. Most of them weren't fit and it showed, usually these players are quick to the ball but really none of them looked up for it because they were injured before they started and then Walker hurt his ankle and because we had made 2 subs he stayed on when clearly not able to run properly. Having said that we made them look world beaters as we were dysfunctional all over the pitch.
That wasn't an ordinary Arsenal side, that was a good Arsenal side that played brilliantly on the day. Arsenal are 4th for a reason, they are better than ordinary sides
The reason that Kranjcar was ineffective was because of the tactics that Redknapp used. We set up to hit them on the counter, drawing them out and then letting Saha and Adebayor get at their rather isolated centre-halves. We're totally unsuited to playing like that though, so I've got no idea why he did so, except as some possible attempt to audition for the England job. We should have matched their numbers in midfield, sought to at least equal them in possession and let confidence and quality do the rest. Failing that, Lennon's pace and superior defensive ability would've been much more useful than Kranjcar's technical skills in the strange system that we did use.
I'd agree with most of that, PNP. it's what I've been saying all along. We got it completely wrong tactically by sitting far too deep, and conceding way too much territory and possession. Worst of all, we failed to come anywhere near matching their work rate and intensity. Unforgivable! I'm not a massive Kranjcar fan. For me he's an occasionally effective sub - no more. He played poorly yesterday, and Lennon should have played to stretch their suspect defence even more. Very bad day at the office for Harry, and the players. Let's hope there's some arse kicking done, and no repeats.
Ghoddle: By their own admission this is not a good Arsenal side., In terms of the top 4 or even top 6 Premier league, this is not a good Arsenal side or squad for that matter.., I use the word 'Ordinary', relatively. So this Arsenal side would be a 'good side' if they play Sunday morning football on Hackney Marshes., They are not a good Top 4 Premiership side. In any case we gave away yesterdays game and made them look like a good side.
