Tottenham Hotspur (H) pre match

[STUHILL]

No N'didi AND Hamza.

No Maddison on the wing.

No Gray.

Simples.

[KingsX]

 

5 hours ago, Nicolo Barella said:

Thank you @Guest. We've fallen victim to an awful case of baity journalism.

 

Oops.    Need a do-over.  I had the wrong Fight Club quote.

 

15 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

 

[volpeazzurro]

5 hours ago, Nicolo Barella said:

Thank you @Guest, for some reason nobody seems to have noticed your very important point. @Finnegan @Ric Flair @volpeazzurro @KingsX @Dan LCFC @Samilktray @m4DD0gg @foxfanazer and I'm sure I've missed some. We've fallen victim to an awful case of baity journalism. I would suggest blocking Leicester xtra as a source of information in the future. 

Surely the point is, of course we played better when we put Maddison inside and brought Barnes on, just like he said, most people on here have noted that from last season and could have predicted that before we even kicked off against United. Ric Flairs stats show it, so why is Brendan trying to reinvent the wheel? It's why some people are getting a little frustrated. If he doesn't know by now what Maddison and Tielemans  best positions are by now it seems very strange. 

[sacreblueits442]

24 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

Surely the point is, of course we played better when we put Maddison inside and brought Barnes on, just like he said, most people on here have noted that from last season and could have predicted that before we even kicked off against United. Ric Flairs stats show it, so why is Brendan trying to reinvent the wheel? It's why some people are getting a little frustrated. If he doesn't know by now what Maddison and Tielemans  best positions are by now it seems very strange. 

....a little frustrated!!!

If he carries on like this, it will very soon become, Puel proportion.

  The toxicity back then centred on what we all could see and what some considered a long term plan in motion.

[sacreblueits442]

...i really think Rodgers is looking to be on between 30 - 40 points by December!!!

 Team will be:

 

                    Kasper

Ricardo  Soyuncu Evans  Chilwell

   

 Tielemans Hamza Maddison

 

Albrighton  Vardy   Barnes

 

The graphic says 4-3-3, but Hamza will drop to cover the CBs when the fullbacks go forward.

 

[weller54]

4 hours ago, STUHILL said:

No N'didi AND Hamza.

No Maddison on the wing.

No Gray.

Simples.

That's it in a nutshell. 

[Blue ROI]

Wouldn't be the smartest of statements by Rodgers to make wrt Maddison but his hands are tied to an extent. It's him hinting that 4 or 5 of the team could be classed as indispensible.

 

He ain't gonna say that he's trying to fit the most high profile players into a less than stellar system of play. Whether its for the good of the team or not Maddison, Tielemans, N'Didi all seemingly have to be accomodated around the middle.

[Grebfromgrebland]

It's good to hear that spurs are interested in 3 of our players just before we play them. Just like Chelsea were interested in Chilwell just before we played them.

[Silva Fox]

45 minutes ago, Blue ROI said:

Wouldn't be the smartest of statements by Rodgers to make wrt Maddison but his hands are tied to an extent. It's him hinting that 4 or 5 of the team could be classed as indispensible.

 

He ain't gonna say that he's trying to fit the most high profile players into a less than stellar system of play. Whether its for the good of the team or not Maddison, Tielemans, N'Didi all seemingly have to be accomodated around the middle.

I was quite disappointed to hear his comments earlier - he should have just said the window is shut and we are not interested in selling any of our best players in any case.

[Shane]

49 minutes ago, Silva Fox said:

I was quite disappointed to hear his comments earlier - he should have just said the window is shut and we are not interested in selling any of our best players in any case.

What did he say?

[fuchsntf]

But...just Stop und think.....!!! > for all involved & fanatical, Plus bombastically One sided..!!! On a  Footy-forum..impossible, I know<

 

Rodgers,might just be right in his ideology and a quite a few on here totally wrong, insistent that only "Your Way makes obvious sense"

[Silva Fox]

18 minutes ago, Shane said:

What did he say?

"This is a club that doesn’t want to sell its best players, but of course, if there’s a valuation that is met, which meets what the club perceive the player to be worth, then there will be a discussion."

"He still has lots of improvements to make as a young player.

"He, along with a number of young players, we want to keep here. But of course, I'm a realist as well."

"I understand how the market works. But it's not something we'd be looking to entertain"

[NaijaFox]

21 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

Wolves we were lucky to draw. Sheffield United I think could've gone any way and a draw would probably have been about fair. Chelsea we got better as it went on (Maddison came inside I seem to recall). Man Utd was a pathetic performance.

 

For me it's not about stupidly high expectations. I feel like we're playing within ourselves, imposing restrictions upon ourselves when there is evidence to suggest we've got the tools for a lot better.

 

I cannot fathom him thinking Maddison out wide is better than in the centre. It's just... honestly. It's like thinking Vardy's a better winger than striker.

Why were we "lucky" to draw? Because VAR did its job and disallowed their "goal" according to the rules of the game?

 

Other than that, I find no rational reason to consider the draw "lucky" after we out-possessed, out-passed, and out-shot them (albeit we were mostly shooting blanks). Frankly, apart from the spell between the start of the second-half and their disallowed "goal", they mostly parked the bus while looking for the quick ball over the top. An average outing by us but hardly poor. 

 

Much the same can be said about the Sheffield United game. Apart from the period from the start of the second-half up to their equalizer, they were just content not to concede. There was only ever going to be one winner in that game. Meanwhile, if we were "lucky" to draw against Wolves, then we were similarly "unlucky" not to have beaten Chelsea or drawn with Manure.

 

[Ric Flair]

19 minutes ago, NaijaFox said:

Why were we "lucky" to draw? Because VAR did its job and disallowed their "goal" according to the rules of the game?

 

Other than that, I find no rational reason to consider the draw "lucky" after we out-possessed, out-passed, and out-shot them (albeit we were mostly shooting blanks). Frankly, apart from the spell between the start of the second-half and their disallowed "goal", they mostly parked the bus while looking for the quick ball over the top. An average outing by us but hardly poor. 

 

Much the same can be said about the Sheffield United game. Apart from the period from the start of the second-half up to their equalizer, they were just content not to concede. There was only ever going to be one winner in that game. Meanwhile, if we were "lucky" to draw against Wolves, then we were similarly "unlucky" not to have beaten Chelsea or drawn with Manure.

 

Are you kidding me? They missed some absolute howlers, Jota was on a one man mission to nut meg himself from glorious positions.

[Pliskin]

I like three at the back, provided Benkovic is in the picture. Allow Youri and N’didi to play as a central two, and the three would allow Chilly and Ricky to bomb down the wings, in turn Youri has a target to hit on the wings. Maddison can play as a number ten and when Chilly and Ricky aren’t advancing, Vardy and Barnes/Perez could run the channels allowing Maddison to break forward more.

 

I really think this side would suit a 3-4-3 formation, or at least I would like to see it, it’s got to be better and more dynamic than the narrow diamond? 

[John rayner]

11 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

I like three at the back, provided Benkovic is in the picture. Allow Youri and N’didi to play as a central two, and the three would allow Chilly and Ricky to bomb down the wings, in turn Youri has a target to hit on the wings. Maddison can play as a number ten and when Chilly and Ricky aren’t advancing, Vardy and Barnes/Perez could run the channels allowing Maddison to break forward more.

 

I really think this side would suit a 3-4-3 formation, or at least I would like to see it, it’s got to be better and more dynamic than the narrow diamond? 

Put Maddison in the middle with Tielemans and put Barnes or Albrighton on the left 

[NaijaFox]

22 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Are you kidding me? They missed some absolute howlers, Jota was on a one man mission to nut meg himself from glorious positions.

Absolute howlers?! 

 

Jota disposed Ricardo at the end of the first half and got his feet tangled up as he tried to shoot. At best ONE "howler" if you can in fact earnestly classify it thus.

 

Meanwhile, literally less than 10 minutes earlier, Vardy had whiffed on a virtually tap-in, while Boly had to dig out a virtual goal-line clearance in the 2d minute of time added on.  

[John rayner]

9 minutes ago, NaijaFox said:

Absolute howlers?! 

 

Jota disposed Ricardo at the end of the first half and got his feet tangled up as he tried to shoot. At best ONE "howler" if you can in fact earnestly classify it thus.

 

Meanwhile, literally less than 10 minutes earlier, Vardy had whiffed on a virtually tap-in, while Boly had to dig out a virtual goal-line clearance in the 2d minute of time added on.  

Play madison in the middle with Tielemans and put Barnes on the right 

[deep blue]

4 hours ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

It's good to hear that spurs are interested in 3 of our players just before we play them. Just like Chelsea were interested in Chilwell just before we played them.

And Man U in Maddison.

[John rayner]

On 14/09/2019 at 17:37, foxfanazer said:

We'll set up negatively and lose without threatening

Lot of negative views on here, played 5 won 2 drawn 2 and lost 1 it's not all bad, imo we can beat spurs on Saturday 

[Dan LCFC]

1 hour ago, NaijaFox said:

Why were we "lucky" to draw? Because VAR did its job and disallowed their "goal" according to the rules of the game?

 

Other than that, I find no rational reason to consider the draw "lucky" after we out-possessed, out-passed, and out-shot them (albeit we were mostly shooting blanks). Frankly, apart from the spell between the start of the second-half and their disallowed "goal", they mostly parked the bus while looking for the quick ball over the top. An average outing by us but hardly poor. 

 

Much the same can be said about the Sheffield United game. Apart from the period from the start of the second-half up to their equalizer, they were just content not to concede. There was only ever going to be one winner in that game. Meanwhile, if we were "lucky" to draw against Wolves, then we were similarly "unlucky" not to have beaten Chelsea or drawn with Manure.

 

How many times did Wolves break through? Wolves created more chances in that game than we have in all of ours bar Bournemouth which as I've stated a number of times was an excellent performance and the one where we lived up to our billing.

 

Sheffield United was a weird game, a tight one which we weren't poor in, but weren't particularly great in either. The type you reflect and think you'll take that result, but you've got to improve if you're serious.

 

Chelsea you can argue the toss. You can argue we were lucky to not be more than a goal down by half time. You can argue we were unlucky to not have won it after how well we played in the second half.

 

Not having it about the Man Utd game. We deserved to lose that. It was abject.

[John rayner]

5 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

How many times did Wolves break through? Wolves created more chances in that game than we have in all of ours bar Bournemouth which as I've stated a number of times was an excellent performance and the one where we lived up to our billing.

 

Sheffield United was a weird game, a tight one which we weren't poor in, but weren't particularly great in either. The type you reflect and think you'll take that result, but you've got to improve if you're serious.

 

Chelsea you can argue the toss. You can argue we were lucky to not be more than a goal down by half time. You can argue we were unlucky to not have won it after how well we played in the second half.

 

Not having it about the Man Utd game. We deserved to lose that. It was abject.

Man u beat us because of a soft penalty, I didnt see any quality up front, no penalty we would have got a point 

[foxfanazer]

17 minutes ago, John rayner said:

Lot of negative views on here, played 5 won 2 drawn 2 and lost 1 it's not all bad, imo we can beat spurs on Saturday 

It isn't but it's not that black and white either. The games drawn should've been wins if we set up more positively and a point at the very least Old Trafford was there for the taking. We certainly can win against spurs, with a positive attitude and players playing in their correct positions 

[Dan LCFC]

2 minutes ago, John rayner said:

Man u beat us because of a soft penalty, I didnt see any quality up front, no penalty we would have got a point 

Manchester United were shit because they are shit. When West Ham beat them Sunday it'll be quite an eye opener on them.

[NaijaFox]

15 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

How many times did Wolves break through? Wolves created more chances in that game than we have in all of ours bar Bournemouth which as I've stated a number of times was an excellent performance and the one where we lived up to our billing.

 

Sheffield United was a weird game, a tight one which we weren't poor in, but weren't particularly great in either. The type you reflect and think you'll take that result, but you've got to improve if you're serious.

 

Chelsea you can argue the toss. You can argue we were lucky to not be more than a goal down by half time. You can argue we were unlucky to not have won it after how well we played in the second half.

 

Not having it about the Man Utd game. We deserved to lose that. It was abject.

Depends on what you call "chances". Apart from the Jota chance, there was arguably another when Jimenez dithered on the ball instead of taking a quick shot and was dispossessed.

 

We definitely had BETTER chances to beat Chelsea at Stamford Bridge than Wolves had to beat us. But you seem to exaggerate every "chance" against us while diminishing ours.