Tottenham Hotspur 2011 / 2012

Bashmachkin wrote:

debaser wrote:

Bashmachkin wrote:What about Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes?

He's dead

Doesn't he continue downstream on his raft, alone, crazed perhaps, his future not looking especially bright, but still not absolutely certain to conclude with his imminent death? Although, given his speech at the end of the film, perhaps he'd be better suited for a role with Liverpool? Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes to replace King Kenny Dalglish? Listen to the Anfield roar!

Kimbo wrote:

Deluded F*ck wrote:Van Gaal or Benitez for me.

Not sure if serious. RAFA? What the fuck?


Anyway, it is a shame Spurs are being robbed of their manager when they are building a good side. I remember when we appointed Souness after Robson, I think appointing Rafa would have the same affect.

Jaime wrote:TS I agree with Kimbo. Benitez seems like a bizarre choice in that his philosophy is completely contrary to the style that 'Arry has put in place at Spurs. Would have to almost start from scratch rather than continuing on that path you are already on (which has brought some real PROGRESS to the football club).

Metta World Peace wrote:Benitez's tactics were ripe for the age when teams like Greece and Mourinho's Porto were winning trophies.

Football has moved on and teams like Barcelona, Spain and this new Germany show that cautious rigid tactics are not the only way to succeed. I don't want a manager stuck with a defence first attitude where the primary concern is whether players who dare to foray forward are castigated for being out of position as opposed to being encouraged to show some adventure.

Nobody can persuade me into believing Benitez's Valencia, Liverpool or Inter were adventurous teams.

I appreciate the necessity of building a solid defensive and tactically astute foundation when off the ball, but I don't want to see this Spurs side shackled into forfeiting it's attacking instincts. If it were to win us some silverware I might be persuaded but I don't believe Benitez would be capable any longer. He's a spent force

blutgraetsche wrote:Top post Bernd, that's exactly what some (e.g. otto) simply fail to understand. Football has moved on, there clearly was a paradigm shift in football in the last few years, and those not realising this / sticking to their old ways are like dinosaurs going extinct.

Of course everything goes in cycles and there will be a time again when there will be a backlash, when ultra-defensive shit-on-a-stick (a label good old Valdano created for the joy killing encounters between Mourinho and Benitez btw.) will rule the pitches again. But until then, trying to turn the clock backwards is not being a trend setter, it's being irrelevant. Even in financial terms, since the show factor of football will continue to grow if anything, and today's 'customers' want to be entertained, not bored to death.

blutgraetsche wrote:Top post Bernd, that's exactly what some (e.g. otto) simply fail to understand. Football has moved on, there clearly was a paradigm shift in football in the last few years, and those not realising this / sticking to their old ways are like dinosaurs going extinct.

Of course everything goes in cycles and there will be a time again when there will be a backlash, when ultra-defensive shit-on-a-stick (a label good old Valdano created for the joy killing encounters between Mourinho and Benitez btw.) will rule the pitches again. But until then, trying to turn the clock backwards is not being a trend setter, it's being irrelevant. Even in financial terms, since the show factor of football will continue to grow if anything, and today's 'customers' want to be entertained, not bored to death.

Hlebagone wrote:Surely having such an analytic view on the game is anything but purist...

If you're a purist, the game is an art form.

Romford Pele wrote:Those are my exact same reasons for not wanting a Mourinho-type manager to come and take over at Arsenal. I've tried justfying it to my Arsenal friends but they don't seem to be having any of it.

I guess it all depends on the person really. I first got into football for the enjoyment side and watching guys like Ginola, Bergkamp, Zola etc. Winning with style was amazing. I'm not sure i'd get the same sense of enjoyment if we were to win without playing expressive football. Purist I guess.

worms wrote:LOL the way people are talking here you would think Benitezs Liverpool where a just a more expensive version of Stoke,I remember the 4 - 4 game against Arsenal where we played them off the park,we dominated possession and a fair result would have been something like 6 - 1.Arsenal just scored every time they had a chance.That weren't the only game where we dominated at top team.

And the idea that defensive football is outdated is rubbish,it was only one and a half years ago that Inter won the CL and the main reason for that was there brilliant defense and counter attacking tactics.Throughout the CL campaign that season they had less than 50 percent possession on average.

You only have to look at the last two International tournaments(WC and CA) to see that defensive football is far from outdated and is still very effective.


"Football has moved on, there clearly was a paradigm shift in football in the last few years, and those not realising this / sticking to their old ways are like dinosaurs going extinct. "

Sorry but that's a load of Elitist bullshit,football always worked in cycles and always will do.In a few years time I wouldn't be surprised to see Club football at the highest level going back to the more defensive tactics again of 5 or 6 years ago.

For example nowadays most teams play 4 - 2 - 3 - 1 and already more and more coaches are countering it with a 3-1-4-2.And because of this a new formation willeventually replace the 4 - 2 - 3 - 1 with something more effective for playing against a 3-1-4-2 .It's all about Cycles.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/dec/13/the-question-3-1-4-2-formation-rise?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

blutgraetsche wrote:Err....I actually wrote myself that football goes in cycles, but in the current cycle, attacking teams clearly rule the sport, both on club and international level. Don't let the facts get in the way of your reasoning though.

blutgraetsche wrote:Err....I actually wrote myself that football goes in cycles, but in the current cycle, attacking teams clearly rule the sport, both on club and international level. Don't let the facts get in the way of your reasoning though.

And besides, 3-1-4-2 is actually a more attacking formation on paper than 4-2-3-1, all depending on the philosophy of the coach, of course. But in principle, replacing a defender with an additional forward is an attacking approach. So if anything, teams try to get rid of the back four that has become more or less redundant tactically as most teams play with a lone forward now, and add more firepower up front instead without giving up the numerical advantage in midfield.

debaser wrote:
Spain rule the roost internationally, and I don't know if I could honestly say they've were an outright attacking team at either of the tournaments they won. It was mostly dominant possession and 1-0s. Possession isn't of itself attacking.

blutgraetsche wrote:Thing is, it's not just about being 'aesthetically pleasing', that's great, but at least for me just a byproduct, a nice-to-have that makes your club / team more attractive to fans and neutrals / potential fans. I'm fully convinced that to be successful these days, you have to take the initiative, you have to attack and try to dominate the opposition. Most teams, even smaller ones, can defend these days, teaching a team to cleverly move two rows of four around on the pitch, closing space and making it difficult for the opposition is no rocket science, and you don't need high quality players for it, just a basic level of intelligence and tactical awareness. Finding 'solutions' through creativity and movement, creating chances is a much more difficult task now, and only those who master that are able to dominate their leagues and European competitions.

Of course it doesn't mean that proper defending is negligible these days, on the contrary. It's just a matter of course, something more or less taken for granted and nothing you can set your team apart from others.

blutgraetsche wrote:

debaser wrote:
Spain rule the roost internationally, and I don't know if I could honestly say they've were an outright attacking team at either of the tournaments they won. It was mostly dominant possession and 1-0s. Possession isn't of itself attacking.

Spain's intent is to dominate the opposition and score goals, they are clearly an attacking team. But you are right that possession itself isn't neccesarily attacking. You can have less of the possession and still a (very) attacking philosophy if you try to create goal scoring chances as directly as possible. Many roads lead to Rome.

I'd say the best way to distinguish between (primarily) attacking and defensive minded teams is the philosophy of their coach, or to put it differently, the percentage of (primarily) attacking players on the pitch in contrast to the (primarily) defensive ones, while of course taking into account that nowadays, it's getting more difficult to make that distinction as we're moving close to the total football ideal where all players attack and defend.

If the team acts and not just reacts, the intent to attack is given.

worms wrote:
Not at international level,Uruguay are a counter attacking team and Spain play a double pivot,there not what I would call an attacking team anymore.I have heard there way of playing in the WC described as Catenaccio by keeping possession)But that's just the tip of the iceberg I mean international tournament on the whole are becoming more and more defensive with each passing tournament.I mean even the Copa America last year which used to be all about flair was probably the most defensive international tournament I have ever seen where the underdogs won more often than not due to spoiling tactics and sitting deep.In general the more defensive team won.

And about the 3 - 1 - 4 - 2 I never said it was defensive,it was just an example of couches reacting to the current tactics and formations by countering them with new ideas.This has always happened and always will.There is no perfect formation or perfect way of playing,there is always an other formation or way of playing which has an advantage over it ie rock paper scissors.

And MWP I would argue that the tactic of letting the opposing team have the ball and sitting back is being used more and more by the weaker teams in tournaments.And is still just as effective against most top teams as it used to be,maybe the dominance of Barcelona is making people think that this football is outdated but they are a one off I think,no matter how you play against them you will most likely get beat.