Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
urban.spaceman

Spurs 2-0 A Post Match Thread

By urban.spaceman, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Finnegan

Finnegan

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, StriderHiryu said:

In a 433, when a team attacks they transition into a 343 as shown in the diagram below.

 

Sure but at very few points yesterday (if at all) were we lined up as either diagram. 

 

The 433 as per this interpretation had been a staple under Rodgers, it's how we got to be second in the league this time last year. With Ricardo and Chilwell as conventional (attacking) full backs sitting either side of a very typically structured center back pair. 

 

Semantics is arguing whether or not that was truly 433 or 4141, something I'd consider a pretty much moot point. 

 

There was nothing particularly typical about how we lined up yesterday. I called it asymmetrical, you called it lopsided, in either sense it wasn't particularly orthodox.

 

A few careful chosen still images from select moments of the game don't paint a clear picture. Next to your post a few pages back someone had posted the teams average positions. 

 

6A4B4E90-D8EC-402E-A6FC-63D624D57B3B.jpeg

 

This is clearly not a standard 433. Maddison and Barnes are tucked in in narrow inside forward positions with overlapping wing backs in the wide areas outside them, the right wing back in this case being Albrighton, not JJ. Compared to his performance against, say, Everton, JJ barely got forward at all because his duties were almost exclusively defensive. 

 

What's different about JJ in this though is, as we've both said, the freedom he had defensively to push up and press, hence why he sits in the midfield according to his average position. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggests if you look at average positions for games where Fofana has sat on the right of a back 3, he'd equally be much more advanced as he also gets given the freedom to push well up beyond Fuchs and Evans in those instances. 

 

I mean I completely agree with you, a lot of this is semantics and I don't want an argument about semantics, it wasn't my intention to be in an argument (or even "debate") at all, I just disagree with the notion that what we played yesterday was "typical" anything and it certainly wasn't a simple 433. We stuffed Southampton last year with a "typical" 433. Yesterday was far more elaborate. 

 

Edited by Finnegan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
StriderHiryu

StriderHiryu

Posted
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Sure but at very few points yesterday (if at all) were we lined up as either diagram. 

 

The 433 as per this interpretation had been a staple under Rodgers, it's how we got to be second in the league this time last year. With Ricardo and Chilwell as conventional (attacking) full backs sitting either side of a very typically structured center back pair. 

 

Semantics is arguing whether or not that was truly 433 or 4141, something I'd consider a pretty much moot point. 

 

There was nothing particularly typical about how we lined up yesterday. I called it asymmetrical, you called it lopsided, in either sense it wasn't particularly orthodox.

 

A few careful chosen still images from select moments of the game don't paint a clear picture. Next to your post a few pages back someone had posted the teams average positions. 

 

6A4B4E90-D8EC-402E-A6FC-63D624D57B3B.jpeg

 

This is clearly not a standard 433. Maddison and Barnes are tucked in in narrow inside forward positions with overlapping wing backs in the wide areas outside them, the right wing back in this case being Albrighton, not JJ. Compared to his performance against, say, Everton, JJ barely got forward at all because his duties were almost exclusively defensive. 

 

What's different about JJ in this though is, as we've both said, the freedom he had defensively to push up and press, hence why he sits in the midfield according to his average position. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggests if you look at average positions for games where Fofana has sat on the right of a back 3, he'd equally be much more advanced as he also gets given the freedom to push well up beyond Fuchs and Evans in those instances. 

 

I mean I completely agree with you, a lot of this is semantics and I don't want an argument about semantics, it wasn't my intention to be in an argument (or even "debate") at all, I just disagree with the notion that what we played yesterday was "typical" anything and it certainly wasn't a simple 433. We stuffed Southampton last year with a "typical" 433. Yesterday was far more elaborate. 

 

Fair play, I will agree with you on that! By the way I hope my comments to you don't come across as hostile, I enjoy what you post and you know what you are talking about. It is in fact, good old fashioned forum banter to keep me sane during lockdown!

 

For average positions - JJ played 2/3's of the game as a right back, and 1/3 of the game as a left back, that's why his average position look so strange. It is almost exactly 1/3 closer to the middle of the park compared to Castagne, which would correlate exactly with the last 30 minutes of the game where he played as a left wing back. You are right to say that in this game he got forwards a lot more often than against Everton though! 

 

I also agree it's not just a copy and past 433 out of the textbook, so on that I am in agreement with you, though that is the formation I would call that lineup. And I am sure we would both agree that hopefully we start with this sort of formation a lot more often! We look a class outfit when we play this system and the players put in a performance.

 

 

Edited by StriderHiryu
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ric Flair

Ric Flair

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Sure but at very few points yesterday (if at all) were we lined up as either diagram. 

 

The 433 as per this interpretation had been a staple under Rodgers, it's how we got to be second in the league this time last year. With Ricardo and Chilwell as conventional (attacking) full backs sitting either side of a very typically structured center back pair. 

 

Semantics is arguing whether or not that was truly 433 or 4141, something I'd consider a pretty much moot point. 

 

There was nothing particularly typical about how we lined up yesterday. I called it asymmetrical, you called it lopsided, in either sense it wasn't particularly orthodox.

 

A few careful chosen still images from select moments of the game don't paint a clear picture. Next to your post a few pages back someone had posted the teams average positions. 

 

6A4B4E90-D8EC-402E-A6FC-63D624D57B3B.jpeg

 

This is clearly not a standard 433. Maddison and Barnes are tucked in in narrow inside forward positions with overlapping wing backs in the wide areas outside them, the right wing back in this case being Albrighton, not JJ. Compared to his performance against, say, Everton, JJ barely got forward at all because his duties were almost exclusively defensive. 

 

What's different about JJ in this though is, as we've both said, the freedom he had defensively to push up and press, hence why he sits in the midfield according to his average position. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggests if you look at average positions for games where Fofana has sat on the right of a back 3, he'd equally be much more advanced as he also gets given the freedom to push well up beyond Fuchs and Evans in those instances. 

 

I mean I completely agree with you, a lot of this is semantics and I don't want an argument about semantics, it wasn't my intention to be in an argument (or even "debate") at all, I just disagree with the notion that what we played yesterday was "typical" anything and it certainly wasn't a simple 433. We stuffed Southampton last year with a "typical" 433. Yesterday was far more elaborate. 

 

Barnes game massively suffers when he plays a role that isn't as a LW with a back four behind him and has the licence to maintain width or cut in on a mazy run. Right now he is not really hitting the heights he is capable of for us in the league, I actually think Ünder would be better starting in a tucked in role with Maddison behind Vardy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flappit

Flappit

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Still not a fan of how every VAR offside decision is done at an angle. Surely they could install some spider came along the sideline for squared on angles 

Technically it doesn't matter about the angle. If you know the position of the camera in relation to the pitch then simple geometry will tell you where the lines are. In this case they started off with Aurier's right foot (god knows why) but eventually measured it on Aldeweireld's left shoulder. I suspect Aurier's left shoulder would have been on a similar line to Aldeweireld's.

 

It's an absolute farce, however, because of the frame rate, time lag, not enough info to make decision on the moment the ball is passed (I'd argue the moment the ball hits the passer's foot, as the rest is ball compression/rebound after that). At the very least, they should use only the feet to measure by, rather then sleeves/shoulders/dicks. 

 

I'm enough of a nerd that I used maths & perspective in a graphics programme to check and Maddison is definitely offside by about half a foot (measured on his "sleeve" point) based on Aldeweireld's sleeve position, it's just the perspective of the camera footage that makes it look closer. Based on a standing position alone, Aurier is 2-3ft closer to goal than Maddison, but on shoulder position, because of Maddison's sharp lean, he is offside. 

 

Still bloody hate VAR even though it's technically correct in this case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
urban fox

urban fox

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Flappit said:

Technically it doesn't matter about the angle. If you know the position of the camera in relation to the pitch then simple geometry will tell you where the lines are. In this case they started off with Aurier's right foot (god knows why) but eventually measured it on Aldeweireld's left shoulder. I suspect Aurier's left shoulder would have been on a similar line to Aldeweireld's.

 

It's an absolute farce, however, because of the frame rate, time lag, not enough info to make decision on the moment the ball is passed (I'd argue the moment the ball hits the passer's foot, as the rest is ball compression/rebound after that). At the very least, they should use only the feet to measure by, rather then sleeves/shoulders/dicks. 

 

I'm enough of a nerd that I used maths & perspective in a graphics programme to check and Maddison is definitely offside by about half a foot (measured on his "sleeve" point) based on Aldeweireld's sleeve position, it's just the perspective of the camera footage that makes it look closer. Based on a standing position alone, Aurier is 2-3ft closer to goal than Maddison, but on shoulder position, because of Maddison's sharp lean, he is offside. 

 

Still bloody hate VAR even though it's technically correct in this case.

Offside is one of the few decisions that are black or white. on or off. Doesn't matter whether the dividing line is 1mm or 1metre, there is a definite line and that is that. I agree, to some extent, that the line should be from where the player is standing, not leaning to, as obviously an attacker will generally be leaning forwards, and a defender who is trying spring the trap, leaning in the opposite direction. However, there is a flaw in this too. What happens when an attacker is diving in to head a ball? his feet may be behind the defender, but his head is not, and that is the part of the body that he is attempting to make contact with the ball with. 

I do agree that, the rule needs changing though. perhaps it could be amended to be judged on the part of the body that is actually making contact with the ball? so in the case of an attacker getting a head on the ball ahead of the defender that would be offside, and rightly so, however, in the case of a player running onto a ball a controlling with their feet, such as was the case on Sunday, then that is the part of the body that the line is drawn to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl the Llama

Carl the Llama

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, urban fox said:

Offside is one of the few decisions that are black or white. on or off. Doesn't matter whether the dividing line is 1mm or 1metre, there is a definite line and that is that. I agree, to some extent, that the line should be from where the player is standing, not leaning to, as obviously an attacker will generally be leaning forwards, and a defender who is trying spring the trap, leaning in the opposite direction. However, there is a flaw in this too. What happens when an attacker is diving in to head a ball? his feet may be behind the defender, but his head is not, and that is the part of the body that he is attempting to make contact with the ball with. 

I do agree that, the rule needs changing though. perhaps it could be amended to be judged on the part of the body that is actually making contact with the ball? so in the case of an attacker getting a head on the ball ahead of the defender that would be offside, and rightly so, however, in the case of a player running onto a ball a controlling with their feet, such as was the case on Sunday, then that is the part of the body that the line is drawn to. 

Unlikely that they'd be in mid-dive at the moment the ball's released though, isn't it?  How often do you see that happen on an offside call?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
urban fox

urban fox

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Unlikely that they'd be in mid-dive at the moment the ball's released though, isn't it?  How often do you see that happen on an offside call?

True but it does happen in goalmouth scrambles, possibly corners etc. Was just pointing out the difficulties that might be thrown up if restricted simply to foot position

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl the Llama

Carl the Llama

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, urban fox said:

True but it does happen in goalmouth scrambles, possibly corners etc. Was just pointing out the difficulties that might be thrown up if restricted simply to foot position

Fair enough, i guess in that case bring the magic perpendicular lines out and draw them to the feet?  Ultimately it's the shaky use of human assisted targeting for those secondary lines that's causing most of the problems so minimising their use by mainly targeting planted feet would be a big help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flappit

Flappit

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, urban fox said:

Offside is one of the few decisions that are black or white. on or off. Doesn't matter whether the dividing line is 1mm or 1metre, there is a definite line and that is that. I agree, to some extent, that the line should be from where the player is standing, not leaning to, as obviously an attacker will generally be leaning forwards, and a defender who is trying spring the trap, leaning in the opposite direction. However, there is a flaw in this too. What happens when an attacker is diving in to head a ball? his feet may be behind the defender, but his head is not, and that is the part of the body that he is attempting to make contact with the ball with. 

I do agree that, the rule needs changing though. perhaps it could be amended to be judged on the part of the body that is actually making contact with the ball? so in the case of an attacker getting a head on the ball ahead of the defender that would be offside, and rightly so, however, in the case of a player running onto a ball a controlling with their feet, such as was the case on Sunday, then that is the part of the body that the line is drawn to. 

Yes.... ish. The problem with the new regime of lines is, when was the ball kicked? I'd argue that you could roll the "freeze frame" they used for VAR on Maddison's decision back a few frames and it would still look like the ball was on Justin's foot. However, Maddison, at that point, would not be so far into his lean, so may well have been onside. The act of passing is (unless you're Christian Fuchs slotting in Vardy for a record-breaking goal): Look up, see passing option, look down at ball, strike ball.  The moment that the passer strikes the ball would, for me, be a fairer and easier to determine than the moment it leaves the foot and the pass "has been made".

 

This is the VAR gods repaying us for Son's call against us at home last season where his armpit was a gnat's cock offside to Evans' knee.  Also you have to factor in the margin for error they know exists - 13-30cm or so I think and it's just making a nonsense of it to start drawing lines that fall within that margin of error. If there's any kind of overlap, it should favour the attacker I think. That would have meant Spurs going 2-0 up against us last season, but hey ho.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hollyfox

Hollyfox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, String fellow said:

The last time City won away at both Arsenal and Spurs was 60 years ago in 1960/61, when we also won at Chelsea, finished 6th. in the league and got to the Cup Final. Are those good or bad omens?     

Thanks for that, I did wonder. 

 

Winning at those clubs but finishing 6th

 

Our home form must have been shite

#Brendanout 😄

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
String fellow

String fellow

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hollyfox said:

Thanks for that, I did wonder. 

 

Winning at those clubs but finishing 6th

 

Our home form must have been shite

#Brendanout 😄

Winning at Arsenal and Spurs and losing at home to Fulham and West Ham is borderline bonkers. Maybe empty stadiums are skewing the usual home/away stats.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raw Dykes

Raw Dykes

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, NaijaFox said:

@Guestand @Raw Dykes , usually not one to indulge in "I told you so" but suffice it to point out that our spirited debate on how best to reintroduce Castagne into the side - that is, whether better to sub him in (your positions) or to start him and subbed him out (my position) - has now been resolved in non-hypothetical reality. I may be confused by colloquial terms, but some things seem more obvious.  lol

 

PS: @HighPeakFox thanks again.     

You wouldn't let it lie, would you?

 

You told me nothing. For one thing, I was asking what you would do with a Castagne who was fit to play 20 or 30 minutes. As it turns out, he was fit to play at least 60. In that case, I'd agree that you have to start him, as you don't want to be bringing him in on the first half and using a sub so early in the game, but we never talked about a Castagne who was that fit, did we?. For another, I was only saying what I'd do. Brendan may well have other ideas, like taking Nacho off at half time against Bournemouth, for example. Or are you telling me that you believe whatever BR does is correct?

 

I'm not trawling through all that again, but here's a recap from memory. You said a player is either fit or not, implying it is a binary thing with no grey areas. I ask if your laughably simplistic view of fitness is a joke, and so you ask if I'm stupid. It was clear then that you weren't joking. That a player was either fit to play 90 minutes, or not fit to play 90 seconds was actually what you thought. After I replied, you seemed to accept that a player could be only fit to play part of a match, but that it makes no difference whether they start or are subbed on. I point out that there is a difference. Then, all of a sudden, you clearly accept that there is a difference and that you'd even prefer to start said player. Can you spot a trend emerging?

 

At no point in all of this did you admit making a mistake or changing your mind. You also fought with strawmen (as you still are doing now) and weaseled out of answering questions with strange detours from the point at hand.

 

I thank you, @HighPeakFox, for helping me to see this argument was a big waste of time, but I can't let NaijaFox go away all smug thinking he's somehow won this. It ain't right.

 

I don't intend to say anything more about this. You shouldn't dig up old graves, especially if the grave you dig up has you in it having an absolute mare.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HighPeakFox

HighPeakFox

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Raw Dykes said:

You wouldn't let it lie, would you?

 

You told me nothing. For one thing, I was asking what you would do with a Castagne who was fit to play 20 or 30 minutes. As it turns out, he was fit to play at least 60. In that case, I'd agree that you have to start him, as you don't want to be bringing him in on the first half and using a sub so early in the game, but we never talked about a Castagne who was that fit, did we?. For another, I was only saying what I'd do. Brendan may well have other ideas, like taking Nacho off at half time against Bournemouth, for example. Or are you telling me that you believe whatever BR does is correct?

 

I'm not trawling through all that again, but here's a recap from memory. You said a player is either fit or not, implying it is a binary thing with no grey areas. I ask if your laughably simplistic view of fitness is a joke, and so you ask if I'm stupid. It was clear then that you weren't joking. That a player was either fit to play 90 minutes, or not fit to play 90 seconds was actually what you thought. After I replied, you seemed to accept that a player could be only fit to play part of a match, but that it makes no difference whether they start or are subbed on. I point out that there is a difference. Then, all of a sudden, you clearly accept that there is a difference and that you'd even prefer to start said player. Can you spot a trend emerging?

 

At no point in all of this did you admit making a mistake or changing your mind. You also fought with strawmen (as you still are doing now) and weaseled out of answering questions with strange detours from the point at hand.

 

I thank you, @HighPeakFox, for helping me to see this argument was a big waste of time, but I can't let NaijaFox go away all smug thinking he's somehow won this. It ain't right.

 

I don't intend to say anything more about this. You shouldn't dig up old graves, especially if the grave you dig up has you in it having an absolute mare.

Ee heck. You've given him what he wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...