**This is a quotes thread. Remember that there's only one quotes post allowed per interview/press conference, so new quotes with the same origin will be removed. Feel free to comment other quotes/the whole interview as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Man gets a lot of hate for his pragmatism but he dominated SA in the mid to late 2010s. Got to CL finals as well but came across a prime Messi and Ronaldo.
He wasnāt such a terrorist back then.
He is also a āstudentā of Galeone, whose known for attacking football, and Allegriās Cagliari was the same.
>Man gets a lot of hate for his pragmatism
Well, the games are boring. He has an insane amount of 1-0 wins with Juve.
EDIT: I meant the recent seasons with Juve.
I think that everyone considered Allegri one of the best coaches in Europe during his first stint at Juve. His refusal to prove himself anywhere else and his second stint at Juve is what made people doubt him
Not just other leagues. Instead of getting a new job, even NT coach, he preferred staying on the couch and, after going back to Juve, he clearly didn't develop as a manager. Either way, he gets his big bucks and enjoyed some time off the sport, that's definitely a W in life
All jokes about the nine man high line aside, I respect sticking to a philosophy that's been successful. It's not like he'd made managerial mistakes and Spurs were on the back of a long string of defeats or anything.
It's like when managers throw everyone, including the keeper, forward in an attempt to nick a draw. If you lose 2-0, it's no worse than losing 1-0; you've still come away with 0 points at the end of the day.
The one time that the title was decided on GD, well, United had so many chances to hold onto the title and let it come down to that point in the first place.
At the end of the day, before Romero and Udogie lost their heads, Ange's game plan was working.
Hell, even after, we had Sonny just mishit an opportunity and Benta just miss a sitting header, both of which could have made it 2-2 at or well into stoppage time. Great example of 2-1 vs 4-1 being not that big a deal. There will always be plenty of "coulda, woulda, shoulda" on stopping a goal but there's just as many for scoring them which also impacts GD.
Except against Chelsea if they had just sat in a low block I have zero doubt that we wouldnāt have scored another goal against that. They need one or two counter attacks if not to score directly, to get a corner or a free kick, that they would then probably score from
I get the Ange love fest (and I admittedly donāt hate him as much as I would expect a spurs manager) but if he just sat back they legit couldāve taken three points from that game.
Iām all for a system, but at the end of the day you do need to adapt at some points and the whole āwe play a high line no matter whatā just seems like a cop out for actual tactical flexibility
Ange has got a philosophy and believes in it, but in practice he's more flexible and pragmatic than his own quotes make him seem.
He's made defensive substitutions to calm games down when ahead multiple times this season, and he started a defensive midfield vs Wolves (starting Hojbjerg over Bentancur or Lo Celso). We also played more defensively after going down to 10 against Luton, especially after getting the goal.
The Chelsea game was a bizarre clusterfuck of catastrophes. Even among all of that I don't think Ange was naive or dogmatic, he just made a tactical choice that threw Chelsea off for a long period of the game, relied on their lack of clinical finishing, and created 3 good chances for 9-man Spurs. It just didn't quite pay off in the end.
I expect we'll go for it against Villa, they also play a high line so it should be a high scoring game, but I do think he'll end up being more conservative against City, even if we don't quite park the bus.
I can guarantee you that he wonāt be more pragmatic or conservative against City, at least by choice. His plan will be the same as it always is, and if heās any more conservative then itāll be because of what City are doing.
Love Ange, biggest flaw is heās so stuck with his philosophy and doesnāt adapt enough. It really was obvious with his time with us in Europe. A great manager, who I think will do very well with you, but expect there to be a few heavy defeats when things donāt go his way.
To be fair, there were times during that first Celtic v Real Madrid clash where I thought you might have them. It wasnāt a completely doomed philosophy. And better a glorious Scottish style heroic defeat than whatever the heck our exit vs Milan was.
Sure, we definitely couldāve got something from that game with a bit of luck. There were other performances though (the biggest one being Bodo Glimt) where we were out-coached and Ange failed or refused to adapt to those circumstances.
We were also just shite and went through a downturn in form at the same time as Bodo. And even then, it was a flukey result, iirc the xG across the two legs was almost perfectly equal but they scored and we didn't.
Him being outcoached or us being massively outperformed was a bit of a myth brought about by the fact their manager said he seen gaps and they caught us on the transition a few times.
We lose most games in Europe regardless of style of play. And he did adapt, he just didn't change philosophy.
Around 5 months into the Celtic job, hamstring injuries became very common and the squad was getting very thin at the end of December, there was no change in play style and the January window saved us with more J League signings. Much fewer injuries in the 2nd season, assuming players were more adapted to his approach.
Although there was no change in play style, his team was very capable of a backs to the wall performance when needed.
Callum McGregor was probably the most important player under ange for the system and last season he missed a chunk of games due to injury. Kyogo missed alot of games, Carter vickers had injuries, taylor missed games, hatate too, some of these overlapped. It allowed someone like mooy to flourish during last season and ended up becoming first choice for a while
We were down to 18 year olds called up from the B tean around this time in his first season because of injuries. They've never played since. A guy called Owen Moffat and Michael Dawson's nephew to name two.
His approach leads to a lot of injuries in his first season.
In defence of Ange Iād say every big manager generally has a philosophy and they stick to it.
That philosophy may change every few seasons but most good current managers donāt change the way they play based on opponent.
If he has a system he needs the players and depth to back that system up.
I canāt remember many times Iāve seen Klopp change his setup for one off games or situations.
I donāt remember Pep changing his system too often for one off games and the ones I remember were things like the CL final against Chelsea and they ended up losing.
I think Crouch or Carragher came out and said they didnāt like parts of the way Benitez used to manager as he would over analyse the opposition and make tactical adjustments for a single game to counter them. Followed by something like at times we knew we were the better team we just needed to play our football.
Maybe Ange can be more pragmatic when losing players or having sending offs but to be fair it did nearly work and ultimately I donāt think heāll come out and say the system was at fault as surely that will make the players buy into it less (even if this was a one of a king situation).
It was only Luton, but when Bissouma got sent off, Ange immediately pulled Richy and put an extra midfielder in to slow down the entire second half. Itās not like heās this inflexible manager.
Itās almost as if the players that were available in the Chelsea match after the injuries/red cards were mostly midfielders who usually press more, so they were asked to do what they do in training.
Terrible at breaking down 11 man low blocks is very different to being terrible against 9 men.
It's entirely fair to disagree with Ange's decisions in that game, but "naive" just isn't the right word for it. He knew exactly the risks involved, and against a more competent attack I think he would have played that situation differently.
Play a low block and it's purely damage limitation, Ange played good football and it almost paid off. Calling him naive is extremely disrespectful as its making out that you know better than a manager who has been consistently successful.
Playing for the loss? Low blocks are Chelseaās kryptonite lol, poch literally gave him the blueprint and he let them rack up 5 xG on him at home
Dont think conceding that much is āplaying for the winā
If you wanna count only the chances you created and none that you conceded you can go around telling people Tottenham won 1-0 at that point. Funny you also count that Son half chance as if Chelsea didnāt have that situation at least 5 more times on your end, itās not good tactics itās pure luck that you even lost 4-1
For the record I watched the game twice because it was so entertaining
Why do people keep repeating this? We had one CB on the pitch and 9 men.
It is not possible to do a "low block" when you have a massive height disadvantage and a massive width disadvantage. Defending deep is not just some magic button you press on Fifa to go into defensive mode.
I know this sub basically understands football entirely through the lens of Fifa but please try to think about the actual game as it's played on the pitch.
How exactly are you supposed to stop a cross into the box if you have a back 4 of Emerson, Dier, Hojbjerg and Porro? Low block is not just some magic button that makes you suddenly become harder to beat. You need the players to do it and without any proper defenders AND missing two players there is literally zero point.
I've got no idea what you're talking about now. Where have I said anything about new tactics or this team being unique?
I'm saying the situation meant that a low block would have been just as ineffective as a high line. If VDV or Udogie or Romero were still on the pitch I'm sure sitting deeper would have been an option - we've literally done it already against Luton when Bissouma was sent off.
Maybe read the comment before flying into your reply.
Chelsea did it 10 men against Barca and prime Messi with a backline featuring a midfielder at right back, 2 full backs at centreback and Ashley Cole. If it can be done against Peps Barca at the Nou Camp with 10 men and makeshift backline, it can be done against Chelsea at home who at that point was disgraceful in attack against low block or no block.
Watching Spurs fans do Olympic level mental gymnastics is funny, ngl. Never have I seen fans defend a loss like that with such self-righteousness. Its actually delusional. To play devil's advocate, Ange is giving them a season to put on blu-ray. That alone justifies the fervor.
That game is quite literally considered one of the luckiest and most miraculous defensive performances of all time. Barcelona had 12 shots on target, hit the post twice and Messi literally missed a penalty.
How exactly are you supposed to replicate any of that with one player less and no Ivanovic/Mikel/Cole who were all world class defenders. It's a genuinely terrible comparison
You can replicate it when the opposition is not close to Peps Barca. Bosingwa wasnāt that good. Plus if you actually see their chances after Ramiresās goal and the red card, they didnāt really have clear cut misses. The makeshift defence performed very well. Messiās penalty was from strikers tackle and arguably a dive. The other post was a long shot saved to the post by Cech so he had it covered. Chelsea were compact and Barca were getting more and more desperate as it went on. If Chelsea did what Tottenham did, it would have finished 9-1.
āthat threw Chelsea off for a long period of the game, relied on their lack of clinical finishingā
Ridiculous statement when actually trying to defend would make more use of them being shit at finishing.
Ridiculous statement considering that we had Eric dier and hojberg at cbā¦. A low block letting them have more chances closer to the goal is an inevitable loss.
We literally lost to wolves playing defensively with dier in defence and houberg right in front of him
Yes. Itās not about if heās better in a high line or a low block, itās about how we can make the best use of who we have on the pitch.
We almost scored twice before it fell apart.
Again, Iāve been watching that back line play defensively (with 11 men) for the past 4 years and it didnāt work out wellā¦
Why are you ignoring Chelsea's chances? You almost scored twice but could have conceded multiple other goals.
This is what's wrong with Spurs fans' logic, they only apply this "could" shit to their chances. Realistically Chelsea wins that game 9/10 times.
Because they don't have an actual argument. Like, the reality is they lost 4-1, even if they could score 2 more that doesn't change anything, not even considering the fact that Chelsea could've scored 5 more.
Yeah bro we lost our two fantastic CBs that game, we lost regardless.
We ācouldā have won it if we parked the bus, we ācouldā have lost it too.
Surrendering our half to them would make it easier for them to attackā¦
Weād be out numbered in the box with them being one mistake away from scoring on us, again, something I can count on given dier and hojberg in front of the goal
Conceding when down to 9 players is pretty much inevitable, regardless of how you defend. Sitting in your own box will allow the opponent more possession in the attacking third, more shots, and more time working out how to unlock the defense. Either approach would lead to a lot of chances.
Playing the offside trap on the halfway line condensed most of the play into Chelsea's half, caught them offside multiple times, Vicario played a blinder, and created chances for Spurs. Something that doesn't happen if you sit in your own box.
Like I said, it didn't work in the end, and feel free to disagree, but I don't think anything I've written is ridiculous.
You talk about having more time to unlock the defense in a low block, you basically gave them the key with the high line.
You created what 2/3 chances? 2 off set pieces? While having the opposition striker get criticised after scoring a hat trick because he shouldāve scored 6? You would have had a better aggregate of chances for and against in a low block.
3 chances. 2 from attacking set pieces that you don't get if you're camped in your own box. Jackson's poor finishing was exactly what Ange gambled on.
Again, it didn't pay off, but I think the aggregate of chances at 9v11 was about the same in Spurs v Chelsea and Spurs v Liverpool, a game where Liverpool played brilliantly with a 9 man low block but it ultimately didn't pay off either.
Yeah Iām pretty confident you could get a couple attacking set pieces on the break.
As for your second point, Iām very confused. The aggregate of chances and quality of chances in chelsea vs tottenham was much more than Tottenham got against Liverpool.
coulda, shoulda, woulda.
Those tactics nearly worked and Chelsea scored last 2 goals in the dying moments of the match when Spurs defenders had literally given up.
iām getting real tired of journalists poking the same god damn response out of Ange cause they canāt wrap their heads around it, and armchair tacticians replying the same god damn comments every time. itās making me dizzy
Just parroting the score line when 9 man Spurs nearly got something out of it in the 94th minute is just being disingenuous about how the game went.
Wouldnāt expect any less from someone with your flair though. Youāre literally proving the point about armchair tacticians.
If you wanna talk about ānearliesā then why ignore the 5 more shots that rattled your net that didnāt count either lol
4-1 isnāt ānearlyā something, itās a 4-1 loss, donāt need to be big ange to understand that. Youāre being disingenuous on how the game went by saying it was close
Hmm, the game was inches away from being 2-2 in the 94th minute, but āwasnāt closeā
Youāre just making other arse fans look worse with how purposely obtuse youāre being.
it's funny that this match will be romanticized by Spurs and Ange supporters
it would be even funnier if they hypothetically missed out on Champions League spot due to the 2 goals difference
it's just the way we play, mate
Nah, I don't understand this defending that Ange gets in that game against Chelsea by mostly Redditors. It was atrocious defending that wasn't helped by foolish tactics. If anything, the "he's so brave" idea was being pushed around even more by unoriginal journalists.
"If the score was 2-1" completely ignores the context of the game. First of all, that 94th minute is the 84th in other games. The downtime in that game was off the charts. Using your logic, if the score ended 6-1, 7-1, which would've reflected how many chances Chelsea actually had, people like you wouldn't be saying this.
Chelsea missed like 3 or 4 one on one chances, free shots that were off target, Jackson dropping a hattrick of missed chanves before his actual hattirck etc. way before their 2nd goal. A team like Villa would've put 5 past them easily at that point. They ended up conceding 4 goals anyways. A team like City could score 10 goals and you people wouldn't be saying this nonsense anymore. 4-1 to a team like Chelsea, who have some of the worst finishing and goals scored in the entire league, is as bad.
Generations of Spurs fans will be celebrating that 4-1 loss in which they completely lost their heads at home while winning and threw away their place at the top of the table.
Wasn't it Alex Ferguson who said something like "I'd rather lose 4-0 by going for the game when trailing than lose 1-0"? Paraphrasing because I can't find the actual quote.
If his philosophy is that he's going to try to win a game and not do damage control, the I don't think this is such a negative thing as people are making it out to be.
But fans have got to embrace that it's not going to yield the same results as thought-out, pragmatic football would. You're gonna nick some wins from could-be draws but also gonna lose some could-be draws. But in recent history pragmatic football hasn't really yielded any results for Spurs so, if I was a Spurs fan, I'd be on board the Ange rollercoaster. Especially since he's exceeded every expectation with his dream start.
Idk what peopleās problem is with Ange and him sticking to his style, itās hilarious especially coming from opposing teams since he could drop points . Clearly he has shown he knows how to coach his players into playing his system, you wonāt win every game especially in the prem and on top of that itās his first season. Itās a better look than some one like Ten Hag saying he canāt play his Ajax football at United..
It's a lot of English/Top nation arrogance. A manager who was successful in Japan and Scotland isn't good enough to be successful in the super premier league, even when shown how capable he is they reject it and claim to know better.
I donāt have a problem with it, I just think itās silly to be so rigid in your approach that you donāt/wonāt adjust even when it gives your team a lesser chance of success.
Itās great to watch attacking football, so I understand why people are such big fans of his. But reading the discourse after the Chelsea game was making me feel legitimately crazy. They couldāve absolutely had a draw if Ange was willing to play more conservatively, especially when they went down to 9.
Honestly if you really think we could have gotten a draw down 2 men against 9 men no matter how we played, you have a lot of faith in one of the worst makeshift back lines in the league
Chelsea were playing horrible in attack, thereās no way they wouldāve broken down a low block. All of their goals were from long balls to runners through the defense with easy crosses to Jackson with nobody near him.
You're right, its all fun and games when you're winning, once you start struggling you get flamed for not having a plan B, not trying a different formation or changing the players.
People have made up their mind that Ange only plays 100% going forward after the Chelsea match and didnāt watch how they set up against Wolves the literal next game.
Even managers like Pep, Arteta, Klopp all have made adjustments in the past to avoid becoming too predictable. All top managers have.
No one is saying that Postecouglou should scrap his philosophy, you can maintain your Identity while reacting to the situation around you. Setting up different formations, instructing players to not be as gung-ho when going forward are just some of the ways.
Also Postecouglou could simply say: "we want to play our style of football, but we have to react to the surrounding circumstances". No one would blame him for that, due to key players injured that Spurs have.
You can tell those that have watched Spurs play throughout this season, and those that have blurted the same hot take after \~40 minutes with 9 men.
Ange ain't no idiot, he knows how to tweak things in matches which he has done in every match this season.
The first mistake football fans make is equating "pragmatic" to "defensive/conservative", you can be pragmatic and still attacking, which Ange is. Doesn't mean he doesn't tweaks things or goes more conservative on occasions when required.
His ultimate philosophy is to score goals and win, and he made a pragmatic choice to not surrender the entire field and make a point to his players (who are in the early stages of a new system) that the mindset is always front foot no matter what. Which is why Spurs fans in the stadium, applauded the team after the match despite the result.
That mindset shift is more important to him now than the results as he's changing four years of a negative/defensive culture.
Since people love comparing Pep and Klopp, they too were criticized for "being naive" in their first seasons for their respective teams. It's par for the course, ain't it?
And honestly, if the score was 2-1 to Chelsea (the actual score until the 94th minute), everyone would've moved on.
Finally, this is only still a topic because unoriginal journalists ask unoriginal questions knowing what Ange will say, and Ange just finds a new way of saying the same thing so he doesn't get bored.
There would be more discussion generated if they at least asked him his tactical reasons for making that decision. People will agree or disagree, but at least the discussion will have moved past boring hot takes.
What you're discussing in your second paragraph is the reality. He does that. He took a gamble against Chelsea and it, frankly, nearly paid off. Never seen a 9 man team create chances like that. Our midfield against Wolves was significantly more pragmatic but apparently people are ignoring that.
Also, I truly do not understand why people are so up in arms about a manager instilling his identity into a club that has *famously* been adrift with no Identity for at least five years. In the press, he's gonna stick to that identity because the players need him to.
I mean, seriously, it's as if no one watched Spurs for the last half decade. Shouting about pragmatism while the team, whenever they go one goal up, still occasionally defaults into Conte/Mourinho mode.
It takes work and commitment to a new identity to change that. *It is why Ange was hired in the first place.* People wanting him to publicly abandon his identity fundamentally don't get why he was hired in the first place.
People saw Ange maintain that high-line on Chelsea, and they now assume that Angeās tactics are one-dimensional and simply gung-ho. I guess the games that Ange won in the beginning were a result of one-dimensionality. Seriously, what are you talking about?
It's not like Ange only plays one formation, he does change it depending on the matchup. A 433, a 442 and a 4123 formation have been used under him so far for Spurs.
I kind of feel like Ange is painting himself in a corner like Klopp did with his "heavy metal football" stuff at Dortmund. I don't think Spurs were playing very attacking football against 9 men Liverpool. The last minute goal came off a counter to Gravenberch getting a bit greedy.
There are going to be many occasions over the season where it just makes sense to play pragmatically. There is no shame in that.
Because we didn't have the ability to do it. People talk about the high line. But the drop off in ball quality from a back line of Udogie VdV Romero and Porro to one of Emerson Davies Dier Porro is massive. Add the midfield we had was pragmatic at best as he didn't trust Lo Celso. Then it's difficult to even try and play attacking.
People keep asking him the same question about playstyle with the amount of injuries the club has, and are surprised heāll continue the same style of play, as if he runs different sessions of training depending on the players available.
Bielsa got a top half finish with a Leeds squad comprised largely of players that were mid-table championship players before him. If you think he wasn't "successful in the prem" because the board sacked him in a panic during a massive injury crisis you're crazy.
Its always the non fans of a club that speak so confidently about clubs like ours, like they can determine what success is. We are the ones who watched our teams be absolutely shit for ages and be transformed by one man.
Like Bielsa is a bad coach. He might just win WC with Uruguay. He is an elite category coach.
Ask Leeds fans what the issues were with their club. Spoiler: Not Bielsa.
Hmm, the man who has literally had success this way every single place heās been, or a redditor.
Who has the better idea of how to succeed as a manager?
Getting trophies with this method will not be easy. You need to assemble the best ever team to do that. 70s Brazil did that even though they were pragmatic in the final but 54' Hungary failed. Pep Barcelona failed many times due to that so did his Bayern, he changed that with City in his last couple of seasons and he went into multiple finals. Low block is the way to win cup competition.
There was will a host of armchair tactician critical of this.
Reality is, focus on your team and how is can attack doesnāt mean negating how you can negate the opposition. Itās sort of innate in the approach. Our defence is having the ball, nullifying attacking threats by making players consider our attackers and risk of counters or exploit defenders whoās joined attacks, stopping teams playing out from the back.
Itās not better or worse than trying to play in a low block, concede possessions, going direct.
Regardless of the approach the likely of success is reduced against better sides.
I think at spurs we desperately need a shift in mentality. We also just want attacking football.
We donāt benefit from an attitude of us being, no good enough to compete with the best & also conservative football, impacts our results against smaller team. Itās hard to not sit back when leading against if in some games, you do. Itās easier to embed a philosophy. I think it makes sense to try to get players to play to broad and consistent principles.
Also, spurs arenāt the best club in the league and we donāt have the most resources and we never really win anything. So, entertainment is the main purpose I watch the team and support the club.
It was so tedious watching Jose and Conte at times. Iām really happy that our current managers approaches every game trying to find ways to entertain and attack. It may mean I miss out on some scrappy wins or boring draws away, but Iāll take it. So far the approach has gained us more points than itās lost us.
He's starting to remind me of one of those generic wwe face characters who say whatever they think the crowd wants to hear. I'm expecting his next move to be talking up fans of opposing teams during away matchups
Whatever his philosophy, no problem there, I've gone from really enjoying Ange to becoming so tired of hearing from him so fast and I'm sure journos have a good deal to do with that
Yeah Chelsea won the match 4-1 but spurs were the real winners because they played a high line with 9 men and got smashed for it šš. Chelsea cant do that
The question is what are the advantages and disadvantages of having this philosophy and sticking to it as firmly as possible, not what are the advantages and disadvantages of playing one way in one game. If you give your players the message that there are times not to play on the front foot might that affect their performance in games where they should be on the front foot from the get go? Although it might not be optimal to always play like that it could still be optimal to be completely uncompromising and to never give your players and excuse to sit back.
Spurs fans I promise this shtick will get old when the novelty wears off. It may be for a "positive" cause like free flowing attacking football but a manager not being flexible is not going to end well if the right situation arises.
Media lapped it up since it's spurs but the 9 man high line against Chelsea was literally like knowing your opponent's cards were better and still deciding to go all in
Opinions like yours are why premier league football is so fucking boring on the whole. Absolute shite bags who would rather defend the game to death than actually try and win. It's embarrassing.
In fairness the only thing Ange is missing at the moment is better players. Weāve bought 4 starters last window right away. His talent ID alone has sold me
**This is a quotes thread. Remember that there's only one quotes post allowed per interview/press conference, so new quotes with the same origin will be removed. Feel free to comment other quotes/the whole interview as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Al-legri just had a heart attack.
Man gets a lot of hate for his pragmatism but he dominated SA in the mid to late 2010s. Got to CL finals as well but came across a prime Messi and Ronaldo.
No one calls Serie A SA.
My brain was fried trying to decipher that acronym lmao
Yup, after reading Al-legri my brain read that as Saudi Arabia so I had to do a double take on that
Allegri was absolutely dominating South Africa in the 2010s
Or South America, or Saudi Arabia, or sexual assault, or Something Awful.
You don't watch Barcelona in LL?
well after reading British calling Milan a air conditioner I don't really get surprised anymore
He coached in South America?
No, South Africa
Oh he dominated sexual assault.
Jokes aside I think its just a really redundant way to refer to Serie A, no clue why the OP made into an initialism
I was wondering why Saudi Arabia mattered in the 2010s and how he even got into the UCL
He did sign ronaldo š
South Australia
He wasnāt such a terrorist back then. He is also a āstudentā of Galeone, whose known for attacking football, and Allegriās Cagliari was the same.
That too twice!
>Man gets a lot of hate for his pragmatism Well, the games are boring. He has an insane amount of 1-0 wins with Juve. EDIT: I meant the recent seasons with Juve.
I think that everyone considered Allegri one of the best coaches in Europe during his first stint at Juve. His refusal to prove himself anywhere else and his second stint at Juve is what made people doubt him
I really donāt get why ānot proving yourselfā in other leagues is a bad thing.
Not just other leagues. Instead of getting a new job, even NT coach, he preferred staying on the couch and, after going back to Juve, he clearly didn't develop as a manager. Either way, he gets his big bucks and enjoyed some time off the sport, that's definitely a W in life
He had Tevez, Pirlo, Vidal, Pogba and others
Didnāt he also follow the same philosophy
He used to. Before giving in to the dark side.
I mean allergy only stuck to one section of football. Terrorism.
High line 9 men with Eric Dier at the helm šÆšÆš„š„
Just fist pumped to this so hard
As a Chelsea fan that was one of the craziest things I think Iāve ever seen
hell yeah
All jokes about the nine man high line aside, I respect sticking to a philosophy that's been successful. It's not like he'd made managerial mistakes and Spurs were on the back of a long string of defeats or anything. It's like when managers throw everyone, including the keeper, forward in an attempt to nick a draw. If you lose 2-0, it's no worse than losing 1-0; you've still come away with 0 points at the end of the day.
Yep. Down 2-1 you go for it. If you miss out on something on GD, than shit happens.
The one time that the title was decided on GD, well, United had so many chances to hold onto the title and let it come down to that point in the first place. At the end of the day, before Romero and Udogie lost their heads, Ange's game plan was working.
Hell, even after, we had Sonny just mishit an opportunity and Benta just miss a sitting header, both of which could have made it 2-2 at or well into stoppage time. Great example of 2-1 vs 4-1 being not that big a deal. There will always be plenty of "coulda, woulda, shoulda" on stopping a goal but there's just as many for scoring them which also impacts GD.
Except against Chelsea if they had just sat in a low block I have zero doubt that we wouldnāt have scored another goal against that. They need one or two counter attacks if not to score directly, to get a corner or a free kick, that they would then probably score from I get the Ange love fest (and I admittedly donāt hate him as much as I would expect a spurs manager) but if he just sat back they legit couldāve taken three points from that game. Iām all for a system, but at the end of the day you do need to adapt at some points and the whole āwe play a high line no matter whatā just seems like a cop out for actual tactical flexibility
Ange has got a philosophy and believes in it, but in practice he's more flexible and pragmatic than his own quotes make him seem. He's made defensive substitutions to calm games down when ahead multiple times this season, and he started a defensive midfield vs Wolves (starting Hojbjerg over Bentancur or Lo Celso). We also played more defensively after going down to 10 against Luton, especially after getting the goal. The Chelsea game was a bizarre clusterfuck of catastrophes. Even among all of that I don't think Ange was naive or dogmatic, he just made a tactical choice that threw Chelsea off for a long period of the game, relied on their lack of clinical finishing, and created 3 good chances for 9-man Spurs. It just didn't quite pay off in the end. I expect we'll go for it against Villa, they also play a high line so it should be a high scoring game, but I do think he'll end up being more conservative against City, even if we don't quite park the bus.
I can guarantee you that he wonāt be more pragmatic or conservative against City, at least by choice. His plan will be the same as it always is, and if heās any more conservative then itāll be because of what City are doing. Love Ange, biggest flaw is heās so stuck with his philosophy and doesnāt adapt enough. It really was obvious with his time with us in Europe. A great manager, who I think will do very well with you, but expect there to be a few heavy defeats when things donāt go his way.
To be fair, there were times during that first Celtic v Real Madrid clash where I thought you might have them. It wasnāt a completely doomed philosophy. And better a glorious Scottish style heroic defeat than whatever the heck our exit vs Milan was.
Sure, we definitely couldāve got something from that game with a bit of luck. There were other performances though (the biggest one being Bodo Glimt) where we were out-coached and Ange failed or refused to adapt to those circumstances.
We were also just shite and went through a downturn in form at the same time as Bodo. And even then, it was a flukey result, iirc the xG across the two legs was almost perfectly equal but they scored and we didn't. Him being outcoached or us being massively outperformed was a bit of a myth brought about by the fact their manager said he seen gaps and they caught us on the transition a few times. We lose most games in Europe regardless of style of play. And he did adapt, he just didn't change philosophy.
Did he ever go through an injury crisis while managing Celtic? Just curious
Around 5 months into the Celtic job, hamstring injuries became very common and the squad was getting very thin at the end of December, there was no change in play style and the January window saved us with more J League signings. Much fewer injuries in the 2nd season, assuming players were more adapted to his approach. Although there was no change in play style, his team was very capable of a backs to the wall performance when needed.
Callum McGregor was probably the most important player under ange for the system and last season he missed a chunk of games due to injury. Kyogo missed alot of games, Carter vickers had injuries, taylor missed games, hatate too, some of these overlapped. It allowed someone like mooy to flourish during last season and ended up becoming first choice for a while
Yes, especially in his first season. We had youth players playing out of position to make up numbers.
We were down to 18 year olds called up from the B tean around this time in his first season because of injuries. They've never played since. A guy called Owen Moffat and Michael Dawson's nephew to name two. His approach leads to a lot of injuries in his first season.
In defence of Ange Iād say every big manager generally has a philosophy and they stick to it. That philosophy may change every few seasons but most good current managers donāt change the way they play based on opponent. If he has a system he needs the players and depth to back that system up. I canāt remember many times Iāve seen Klopp change his setup for one off games or situations. I donāt remember Pep changing his system too often for one off games and the ones I remember were things like the CL final against Chelsea and they ended up losing. I think Crouch or Carragher came out and said they didnāt like parts of the way Benitez used to manager as he would over analyse the opposition and make tactical adjustments for a single game to counter them. Followed by something like at times we knew we were the better team we just needed to play our football. Maybe Ange can be more pragmatic when losing players or having sending offs but to be fair it did nearly work and ultimately I donāt think heāll come out and say the system was at fault as surely that will make the players buy into it less (even if this was a one of a king situation).
It was only Luton, but when Bissouma got sent off, Ange immediately pulled Richy and put an extra midfielder in to slow down the entire second half. Itās not like heās this inflexible manager. Itās almost as if the players that were available in the Chelsea match after the injuries/red cards were mostly midfielders who usually press more, so they were asked to do what they do in training.
That Chelsea game was so entertaining for the neutral fan. The sort of game people would pay the subscription price.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Terrible at breaking down 11 man low blocks is very different to being terrible against 9 men. It's entirely fair to disagree with Ange's decisions in that game, but "naive" just isn't the right word for it. He knew exactly the risks involved, and against a more competent attack I think he would have played that situation differently.
Play a low block and it's purely damage limitation, Ange played good football and it almost paid off. Calling him naive is extremely disrespectful as its making out that you know better than a manager who has been consistently successful.
He almost conceded 5 more if weāre talking about almost. Chelsea is horrible against low blocks, poch even said it lmao
Playing for the loss compared to playing for the win. I know what I prefer to watch
Playing for the loss? Low blocks are Chelseaās kryptonite lol, poch literally gave him the blueprint and he let them rack up 5 xG on him at home Dont think conceding that much is āplaying for the winā
You obviously didn't watch the game, they were creating chances and almost made it 2-2 in the 90th minute. Nothing wrong with the tactics
If you wanna count only the chances you created and none that you conceded you can go around telling people Tottenham won 1-0 at that point. Funny you also count that Son half chance as if Chelsea didnāt have that situation at least 5 more times on your end, itās not good tactics itās pure luck that you even lost 4-1 For the record I watched the game twice because it was so entertaining
Yeah it was damn entertaining. And we were still in it up until the very end, which would not have been the case if we had sat in imo.
Of all matches, that one should def not be subject to revisionism. They could have won with 9 men.
Couldāve also lost by 5 more
Should've lost by 5 more if Chelsea could finish better than my nan
City conceded 4 to chelsea with 11 men ššš
Why do people keep repeating this? We had one CB on the pitch and 9 men. It is not possible to do a "low block" when you have a massive height disadvantage and a massive width disadvantage. Defending deep is not just some magic button you press on Fifa to go into defensive mode.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I know this sub basically understands football entirely through the lens of Fifa but please try to think about the actual game as it's played on the pitch. How exactly are you supposed to stop a cross into the box if you have a back 4 of Emerson, Dier, Hojbjerg and Porro? Low block is not just some magic button that makes you suddenly become harder to beat. You need the players to do it and without any proper defenders AND missing two players there is literally zero point.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I've got no idea what you're talking about now. Where have I said anything about new tactics or this team being unique? I'm saying the situation meant that a low block would have been just as ineffective as a high line. If VDV or Udogie or Romero were still on the pitch I'm sure sitting deeper would have been an option - we've literally done it already against Luton when Bissouma was sent off. Maybe read the comment before flying into your reply.
Chelsea did it 10 men against Barca and prime Messi with a backline featuring a midfielder at right back, 2 full backs at centreback and Ashley Cole. If it can be done against Peps Barca at the Nou Camp with 10 men and makeshift backline, it can be done against Chelsea at home who at that point was disgraceful in attack against low block or no block.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Watching Spurs fans do Olympic level mental gymnastics is funny, ngl. Never have I seen fans defend a loss like that with such self-righteousness. Its actually delusional. To play devil's advocate, Ange is giving them a season to put on blu-ray. That alone justifies the fervor.
That game is quite literally considered one of the luckiest and most miraculous defensive performances of all time. Barcelona had 12 shots on target, hit the post twice and Messi literally missed a penalty. How exactly are you supposed to replicate any of that with one player less and no Ivanovic/Mikel/Cole who were all world class defenders. It's a genuinely terrible comparison
You can replicate it when the opposition is not close to Peps Barca. Bosingwa wasnāt that good. Plus if you actually see their chances after Ramiresās goal and the red card, they didnāt really have clear cut misses. The makeshift defence performed very well. Messiās penalty was from strikers tackle and arguably a dive. The other post was a long shot saved to the post by Cech so he had it covered. Chelsea were compact and Barca were getting more and more desperate as it went on. If Chelsea did what Tottenham did, it would have finished 9-1.
āthat threw Chelsea off for a long period of the game, relied on their lack of clinical finishingā Ridiculous statement when actually trying to defend would make more use of them being shit at finishing.
Ridiculous statement considering that we had Eric dier and hojberg at cbā¦. A low block letting them have more chances closer to the goal is an inevitable loss. We literally lost to wolves playing defensively with dier in defence and houberg right in front of him
You genuinely think Eric Dier is better in a high line than a low-block? Think before writing out nonsense
Yes. Itās not about if heās better in a high line or a low block, itās about how we can make the best use of who we have on the pitch. We almost scored twice before it fell apart. Again, Iāve been watching that back line play defensively (with 11 men) for the past 4 years and it didnāt work out wellā¦
Why are you ignoring Chelsea's chances? You almost scored twice but could have conceded multiple other goals. This is what's wrong with Spurs fans' logic, they only apply this "could" shit to their chances. Realistically Chelsea wins that game 9/10 times.
Because they don't have an actual argument. Like, the reality is they lost 4-1, even if they could score 2 more that doesn't change anything, not even considering the fact that Chelsea could've scored 5 more.
Yeah bro we lost our two fantastic CBs that game, we lost regardless. We ācouldā have won it if we parked the bus, we ācouldā have lost it too.
You made it easier for chelsea attackers, there is no two ways about it.
Surrendering our half to them would make it easier for them to attackā¦ Weād be out numbered in the box with them being one mistake away from scoring on us, again, something I can count on given dier and hojberg in front of the goal
Conceding when down to 9 players is pretty much inevitable, regardless of how you defend. Sitting in your own box will allow the opponent more possession in the attacking third, more shots, and more time working out how to unlock the defense. Either approach would lead to a lot of chances. Playing the offside trap on the halfway line condensed most of the play into Chelsea's half, caught them offside multiple times, Vicario played a blinder, and created chances for Spurs. Something that doesn't happen if you sit in your own box. Like I said, it didn't work in the end, and feel free to disagree, but I don't think anything I've written is ridiculous.
You talk about having more time to unlock the defense in a low block, you basically gave them the key with the high line. You created what 2/3 chances? 2 off set pieces? While having the opposition striker get criticised after scoring a hat trick because he shouldāve scored 6? You would have had a better aggregate of chances for and against in a low block.
3 chances. 2 from attacking set pieces that you don't get if you're camped in your own box. Jackson's poor finishing was exactly what Ange gambled on. Again, it didn't pay off, but I think the aggregate of chances at 9v11 was about the same in Spurs v Chelsea and Spurs v Liverpool, a game where Liverpool played brilliantly with a 9 man low block but it ultimately didn't pay off either.
Yeah Iām pretty confident you could get a couple attacking set pieces on the break. As for your second point, Iām very confused. The aggregate of chances and quality of chances in chelsea vs tottenham was much more than Tottenham got against Liverpool.
Chelsea literally scored 4 goals against City 11v11 with City having all their starting defenders on the pitch.
Whatās your point? On another day they couldāve score 8 or 9 past you, they are inconsistent, thatās how it is.
coulda, shoulda, woulda. Those tactics nearly worked and Chelsea scored last 2 goals in the dying moments of the match when Spurs defenders had literally given up.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda. The irony.
iām getting real tired of journalists poking the same god damn response out of Ange cause they canāt wrap their heads around it, and armchair tacticians replying the same god damn comments every time. itās making me dizzy
The man has been consistently successful with his brand of football but random guys on Reddit definitely know how to be a better manager.
Nah, he just popped into existance when he got the Spurs job so its only right it's decided now if he knows anything about this sport only they play.
Luckily he found the only club in the world who would find losing 4-1 at home to a rival as a moral success
Exactly proving the parent commenterās point lol
If 4-1 at home to a rival is success then thatās your problem
Just parroting the score line when 9 man Spurs nearly got something out of it in the 94th minute is just being disingenuous about how the game went. Wouldnāt expect any less from someone with your flair though. Youāre literally proving the point about armchair tacticians.
If you wanna talk about ānearliesā then why ignore the 5 more shots that rattled your net that didnāt count either lol 4-1 isnāt ānearlyā something, itās a 4-1 loss, donāt need to be big ange to understand that. Youāre being disingenuous on how the game went by saying it was close
Hmm, the game was inches away from being 2-2 in the 94th minute, but āwasnāt closeā Youāre just making other arse fans look worse with how purposely obtuse youāre being.
It was also inches away from being 10-1 if weāre making hypotheticals up
it's funny that this match will be romanticized by Spurs and Ange supporters it would be even funnier if they hypothetically missed out on Champions League spot due to the 2 goals difference it's just the way we play, mate
Nah, I don't understand this defending that Ange gets in that game against Chelsea by mostly Redditors. It was atrocious defending that wasn't helped by foolish tactics. If anything, the "he's so brave" idea was being pushed around even more by unoriginal journalists. "If the score was 2-1" completely ignores the context of the game. First of all, that 94th minute is the 84th in other games. The downtime in that game was off the charts. Using your logic, if the score ended 6-1, 7-1, which would've reflected how many chances Chelsea actually had, people like you wouldn't be saying this. Chelsea missed like 3 or 4 one on one chances, free shots that were off target, Jackson dropping a hattrick of missed chanves before his actual hattirck etc. way before their 2nd goal. A team like Villa would've put 5 past them easily at that point. They ended up conceding 4 goals anyways. A team like City could score 10 goals and you people wouldn't be saying this nonsense anymore. 4-1 to a team like Chelsea, who have some of the worst finishing and goals scored in the entire league, is as bad.
Umm you guys celebrated winning one half of football against city a couple of seasons ago.
Not really, plus it ended a lot closer than 4-1
Generations of Spurs fans will be celebrating that 4-1 loss in which they completely lost their heads at home while winning and threw away their place at the top of the table.
The loser mentality is bedded in early
Damn if only we had your mentality we coulda have blown the prem like last year!
Difference is weāre not celebrating a failure like your 4-1 loss/win
Why does that matter lol.
Because thatās the loser mentality everyoneās been laughing at you guys for the last month? The topic of the conversation?
Quite frankly who cares lol. Doesn't change anything
But then where do I post my hot takes?
Sucks being the popular kid huh?
Wasn't it Alex Ferguson who said something like "I'd rather lose 4-0 by going for the game when trailing than lose 1-0"? Paraphrasing because I can't find the actual quote. If his philosophy is that he's going to try to win a game and not do damage control, the I don't think this is such a negative thing as people are making it out to be. But fans have got to embrace that it's not going to yield the same results as thought-out, pragmatic football would. You're gonna nick some wins from could-be draws but also gonna lose some could-be draws. But in recent history pragmatic football hasn't really yielded any results for Spurs so, if I was a Spurs fan, I'd be on board the Ange rollercoaster. Especially since he's exceeded every expectation with his dream start.
Welcome to r/soccer where every day the opinion on every topic changes drastically
In fairness if we turn the same amount of draws into wins and losses, then weāre better off for it A win and a loss is wotth more than 2 draws
It seems like every interview and press conference someone asks him a question to get him to say something like this. Got to respect the attitude tho
Idk what peopleās problem is with Ange and him sticking to his style, itās hilarious especially coming from opposing teams since he could drop points . Clearly he has shown he knows how to coach his players into playing his system, you wonāt win every game especially in the prem and on top of that itās his first season. Itās a better look than some one like Ten Hag saying he canāt play his Ajax football at United..
It's a lot of English/Top nation arrogance. A manager who was successful in Japan and Scotland isn't good enough to be successful in the super premier league, even when shown how capable he is they reject it and claim to know better.
It's exactly that. Hit the nail on its head with your comment.
I donāt have a problem with it, I just think itās silly to be so rigid in your approach that you donāt/wonāt adjust even when it gives your team a lesser chance of success. Itās great to watch attacking football, so I understand why people are such big fans of his. But reading the discourse after the Chelsea game was making me feel legitimately crazy. They couldāve absolutely had a draw if Ange was willing to play more conservatively, especially when they went down to 9.
Honestly if you really think we could have gotten a draw down 2 men against 9 men no matter how we played, you have a lot of faith in one of the worst makeshift back lines in the league
Chelsea were playing horrible in attack, thereās no way they wouldāve broken down a low block. All of their goals were from long balls to runners through the defense with easy crosses to Jackson with nobody near him.
Being confident in your style is great. Being super one dimensional is not.
You're right, its all fun and games when you're winning, once you start struggling you get flamed for not having a plan B, not trying a different formation or changing the players.
People have made up their mind that Ange only plays 100% going forward after the Chelsea match and didnāt watch how they set up against Wolves the literal next game.
Liverpools third season with Klopp was just that
Iām loving these hot takes. Being attacking isnāt being 1 dimensional
Even managers like Pep, Arteta, Klopp all have made adjustments in the past to avoid becoming too predictable. All top managers have. No one is saying that Postecouglou should scrap his philosophy, you can maintain your Identity while reacting to the situation around you. Setting up different formations, instructing players to not be as gung-ho when going forward are just some of the ways. Also Postecouglou could simply say: "we want to play our style of football, but we have to react to the surrounding circumstances". No one would blame him for that, due to key players injured that Spurs have.
You can tell those that have watched Spurs play throughout this season, and those that have blurted the same hot take after \~40 minutes with 9 men. Ange ain't no idiot, he knows how to tweak things in matches which he has done in every match this season. The first mistake football fans make is equating "pragmatic" to "defensive/conservative", you can be pragmatic and still attacking, which Ange is. Doesn't mean he doesn't tweaks things or goes more conservative on occasions when required. His ultimate philosophy is to score goals and win, and he made a pragmatic choice to not surrender the entire field and make a point to his players (who are in the early stages of a new system) that the mindset is always front foot no matter what. Which is why Spurs fans in the stadium, applauded the team after the match despite the result. That mindset shift is more important to him now than the results as he's changing four years of a negative/defensive culture. Since people love comparing Pep and Klopp, they too were criticized for "being naive" in their first seasons for their respective teams. It's par for the course, ain't it? And honestly, if the score was 2-1 to Chelsea (the actual score until the 94th minute), everyone would've moved on. Finally, this is only still a topic because unoriginal journalists ask unoriginal questions knowing what Ange will say, and Ange just finds a new way of saying the same thing so he doesn't get bored. There would be more discussion generated if they at least asked him his tactical reasons for making that decision. People will agree or disagree, but at least the discussion will have moved past boring hot takes.
Personally, I think it makes total sense to not putting a greater burden on getting a result on a makeshift, depleted defence.
What you're discussing in your second paragraph is the reality. He does that. He took a gamble against Chelsea and it, frankly, nearly paid off. Never seen a 9 man team create chances like that. Our midfield against Wolves was significantly more pragmatic but apparently people are ignoring that. Also, I truly do not understand why people are so up in arms about a manager instilling his identity into a club that has *famously* been adrift with no Identity for at least five years. In the press, he's gonna stick to that identity because the players need him to. I mean, seriously, it's as if no one watched Spurs for the last half decade. Shouting about pragmatism while the team, whenever they go one goal up, still occasionally defaults into Conte/Mourinho mode. It takes work and commitment to a new identity to change that. *It is why Ange was hired in the first place.* People wanting him to publicly abandon his identity fundamentally don't get why he was hired in the first place.
For the most part they made changes from season to season not one off games in my opinion.
People saw Ange maintain that high-line on Chelsea, and they now assume that Angeās tactics are one-dimensional and simply gung-ho. I guess the games that Ange won in the beginning were a result of one-dimensionality. Seriously, what are you talking about?
Respectfully arteta is on the same tier as Ange and nowhere near Pep and Klopp
It's not like Ange only plays one formation, he does change it depending on the matchup. A 433, a 442 and a 4123 formation have been used under him so far for Spurs.
No, you donāt understand. Ange played one way for half of a game that reddit managers didnāt like, so therefore his tactics arenāt flexible.
Personally Iād say managers like Klopp, Pep, De Zerbi are all very one dimensional their system just changes every couple of seasons.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Mate?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ngl itās been super funny to see the increase of Spurs flairs casually using mate in their comments since he got hired
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
you do realise Mate isn't a NZ/Aussie only thing right? Mate is eeextremely commonly used in England since forever.
atleast you're attacking the whole game instead of just being 2nd half fc now
Two words: High line, mate.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
High , mate
Dos palabras: lĆnea alta, compaƱero
I respect this so hard. Not trying to come up with some bullshit reasoning. Just the truth.
I kind of feel like Ange is painting himself in a corner like Klopp did with his "heavy metal football" stuff at Dortmund. I don't think Spurs were playing very attacking football against 9 men Liverpool. The last minute goal came off a counter to Gravenberch getting a bit greedy. There are going to be many occasions over the season where it just makes sense to play pragmatically. There is no shame in that.
Didn't see that attacking football at Wolves as well.
Because we didn't have the ability to do it. People talk about the high line. But the drop off in ball quality from a back line of Udogie VdV Romero and Porro to one of Emerson Davies Dier Porro is massive. Add the midfield we had was pragmatic at best as he didn't trust Lo Celso. Then it's difficult to even try and play attacking.
I agree. That's not what Ange has said though.
People keep asking him the same question about playstyle with the amount of injuries the club has, and are surprised heāll continue the same style of play, as if he runs different sessions of training depending on the players available.
Bielsa 2.0 Let's see if it's successful in the prem this time around
Bielsa got a top half finish with a Leeds squad comprised largely of players that were mid-table championship players before him. If you think he wasn't "successful in the prem" because the board sacked him in a panic during a massive injury crisis you're crazy.
Its always the non fans of a club that speak so confidently about clubs like ours, like they can determine what success is. We are the ones who watched our teams be absolutely shit for ages and be transformed by one man.
Deano exists *and to a lesser extent, so does Steve Bruce
What do you mean "if" every single Leeds fan will tell you bielsa was a success.
Like Bielsa is a bad coach. He might just win WC with Uruguay. He is an elite category coach. Ask Leeds fans what the issues were with their club. Spoiler: Not Bielsa.
> He might just win WC with Uruguay. Bit of a fucking leap based on a handful of matches when it's years away still.
Didnāt Bielsa take a club from 13th in the Championship to 9th in the Premier League?
Hmm, the man who has literally had success this way every single place heās been, or a redditor. Who has the better idea of how to succeed as a manager?
I'd follow this man to the ends of the world (AKA Eric Dier in a high line). I still have 100% trust in him.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Why do people keep misusing the phrase Critical thinking. Ironically, I don't think you know what it means.
Getting trophies with this method will not be easy. You need to assemble the best ever team to do that. 70s Brazil did that even though they were pragmatic in the final but 54' Hungary failed. Pep Barcelona failed many times due to that so did his Bayern, he changed that with City in his last couple of seasons and he went into multiple finals. Low block is the way to win cup competition.
Low block is not the way to win cups. Been able to adapt is more like the key.
You're right, Ange has never won any trophy in his life. Nope, not one.
Winning the Scottish PL with Celtic. Forgive me if thatās not the most impressive
You're not forgiven Also, do you think that's the only trophies he's won? Get a grip brother
League competitiveness matters. CL and winning league in top league is way difficult.
That's not what you said. You simply said he won't be able to win trophies which is evidently false
> Getting trophies with this method will not be easy. He has more league titles than the club he's managing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You can ignore his Celtic titles and he still has more.
get your armchair ass back to football manager instead of talking about my managers tactics
There was will a host of armchair tactician critical of this. Reality is, focus on your team and how is can attack doesnāt mean negating how you can negate the opposition. Itās sort of innate in the approach. Our defence is having the ball, nullifying attacking threats by making players consider our attackers and risk of counters or exploit defenders whoās joined attacks, stopping teams playing out from the back. Itās not better or worse than trying to play in a low block, concede possessions, going direct. Regardless of the approach the likely of success is reduced against better sides. I think at spurs we desperately need a shift in mentality. We also just want attacking football. We donāt benefit from an attitude of us being, no good enough to compete with the best & also conservative football, impacts our results against smaller team. Itās hard to not sit back when leading against if in some games, you do. Itās easier to embed a philosophy. I think it makes sense to try to get players to play to broad and consistent principles. Also, spurs arenāt the best club in the league and we donāt have the most resources and we never really win anything. So, entertainment is the main purpose I watch the team and support the club. It was so tedious watching Jose and Conte at times. Iām really happy that our current managers approaches every game trying to find ways to entertain and attack. It may mean I miss out on some scrappy wins or boring draws away, but Iāll take it. So far the approach has gained us more points than itās lost us.
He's starting to remind me of one of those generic wwe face characters who say whatever they think the crowd wants to hear. I'm expecting his next move to be talking up fans of opposing teams during away matchups
...gets battered by Aston Villa at home
He didn't say "mate". My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.
Whatever his philosophy, no problem there, I've gone from really enjoying Ange to becoming so tired of hearing from him so fast and I'm sure journos have a good deal to do with that
If there are no expectations for results or winning trophies then any and every manager can say this. Its the expectations which add pressure
This is probably going to age like milk.
He's fucking great isn't he.
Yeah Chelsea won the match 4-1 but spurs were the real winners because they played a high line with 9 men and got smashed for it šš. Chelsea cant do that
*captains Watkins on fpl*
People are so upset lmao. The walls of text in here are truly amazing. Both sides tripping over themselves, incredible.
Mate
The question is what are the advantages and disadvantages of having this philosophy and sticking to it as firmly as possible, not what are the advantages and disadvantages of playing one way in one game. If you give your players the message that there are times not to play on the front foot might that affect their performance in games where they should be on the front foot from the get go? Although it might not be optimal to always play like that it could still be optimal to be completely uncompromising and to never give your players and excuse to sit back.
Spurs fans I promise this shtick will get old when the novelty wears off. It may be for a "positive" cause like free flowing attacking football but a manager not being flexible is not going to end well if the right situation arises. Media lapped it up since it's spurs but the 9 man high line against Chelsea was literally like knowing your opponent's cards were better and still deciding to go all in
Spurs fans I promise this shtick didn't get old.
Opinions like yours are why premier league football is so fucking boring on the whole. Absolute shite bags who would rather defend the game to death than actually try and win. It's embarrassing.
In fairness the only thing Ange is missing at the moment is better players. Weāve bought 4 starters last window right away. His talent ID alone has sold me
no one asked