Manager Watch: Ange Postecoglou

[muppetman]

Love our fans, really willing to give a new manager the time he needs.

As long as we don’t lose, or play badly, or concede silly goals.

But if we don’t do any of that we will back him to the hilt!

Bad day at the office against a title chasing side, whilst we are clearly very much a work in progress.

I’m still fucked off though.

 

[Trix]

But again even if they're to stick to the zonal marking then they're clearly not following the plan either. There's a reason to zonal marking and it's based on the theory that every player defends all dangerous positions of the box. So in that case how do teams score from the 6 yard box? Players have the responsibility to defend it so how is that not on the players as well? Surely someone has the job of defending the near post of the 6 yard box. The fact is they did follow instructions and it didn't work, they conceded twice again from it.

I'll explain but tbh I thought it was pretty obvious.

What happens is you put your defensive players into sections roughly 2m apart. That area is then their responsibility, and that's why they can't leave it.

The opposition then rush a small area in unison creating an overload. This means not only do they now have a numbers advantage in that small 2m area but they also have momentum over a static player with no run up. The goals today are a great example of this. An Arsenal surge in number from the back post to the front post. Not only do our defenders have no idea they are coming but are swarmed by the time ball gets there.

You see the attacking team has the advantage of knowing roughly where the set piece taker is going to try and put the ball. Our guys are just standing there hoping it falls on one of their heads.

This system was dropped by everyone decent over a decade ago. Football coaching now is all about creating overloads where you can gain a numbers advantage in good areas. So many drills teams do now focus on this. It's why Ange pushes his fullbacks into midfield for example. I'm amazed he can't see it.

 

[Whazam]

This is honestly dangerous thinking.

We didn't "completely dominate them" - they allowed us to have the ball in areas where we create very little danger, and they exploited our specific weaknesses.

Exactly what Newcastle and Fulham both did to us.

Viewing Arsenal allowing us to have the ball as us dominating is really going to screw your objective view of a game. Not realising it's by design is naïve. Inventing that we created chances apart from a couple of headers and declaring they didn't do so themselves is wilful denial of what you watched.

It's dangerous thinking to give us credit for pinning back the opposition? No, it's refusing to do it that makes people go nuts and want to lose our manager after a good performance against what is (unfortunately) the most consistent team of the season.

We got it to dangerous positions so many times, so of it was by design, it was them who were naïve and should be very, very happy they got away with it.

Also, even when being 3-0 up they adjusted in the second half to be able to have more possession. At that time it would have made more sense for them to apply the game plan you suggest they went into the game with.

Also, why doesn't headers in good areas, Son clear on goal, a disallowed goal because of millimeter offside count as us playing good and creating chances? How did I make them up?

Is it THAT difficult to give us some credit?

They sat back the same way v City away. The difference being City are far better at suffocating a team than we are. It was their game plan from the off. You could see it, I even mentioned it a few weeks ago that I thought Arteta would come to us and do the same thing.

2 shots on target is not good enough.

We are far from Manchester City though. Not sure any team in world football would approach us the same way as them at the moment. But if that was indeed their game plan, why did they deviate from it in the second half when they would have benefited the most from it? Is it that impossible that we actually managed to do something quite well?

I agree two shots on target isn't good enough. That's why we lost (and those awful corners), but since you ignored the rest I assume you agree a good chance doesn't have to equal a shot on target.

 

[-Afri-Coy-]

VAR ruling off VDV’s goal after 2 rebounds should be considered a war crime.

Ange got the starting 11 wrong for me today, but the second half shows he was aware of this and brought on Sarr/Bissouma which tightened up our midfield well.

Onward and upward, we need to sort out the set pieces but the rest will fall into place.

 

[rossdapep]

There were certainly a lot of positives too today. I think they are being overlooked due to the result, and we will probably see them more clearly on reflection.

I agree.

Thought we were causing them a lot of problems by winning the ball in their build up.

We have to give Ange time and see where it leads to.

I think people are also reading his comments a little incorrectly.

I think what he is saying is of he thought set pieces made the biggest difference to making us a better team he'd work on that.

But he has limited time and he believes that drilling a way of playing into the team will be more beneficial long term.

Set pieces and the smaller details can be worked on deeper later.

Right now, we need to be a better team with and without the ball and are working on stuff like shape and patterns.

I also think Ange believes we need to cut out corners quicker to, which was our own undoing.

 

[spurs mental]

We are far from Manchester City though. Not sure any team in world football would approach us the same way as them at the moment. But if that was indeed their game plan, why did they deviate from it in the second half when they would have benefited the most from it? Is it that impossible that we actually managed to do something quite well?

That's why I said Man City are far better at it. They make less mistakes than any other team.

I dont think they deviated too much, we had to come out and be aggressive, force them back, there was no other choice. We played well but still nearly went 4-0 down at the same time, twice.

I agree two shots on target isn't good enough. That's why we lost (and those awful corners), but since you ignored the rest I assume you agree a good chance doesn't have to equal a shot on target.

Romero hit the post and could have had 2 others go in too but went just wide and over respectively. We were a little wasteful but a good chance should also be making the opposition keeper work a bit harder, especially at home.

 

[Misfit]

Sorry but the idea that any random youngster will be better than Bissouma, Hojbjerg, Maddison or Son is absurd. I want to see our youth too, but come on.

Youth players are the backup QBs of football.

 

[rossdapep]

This is honestly dangerous thinking.

We didn't "completely dominate them" - they allowed us to have the ball in areas where we create very little danger, and they exploited our specific weaknesses.

Exactly what Newcastle and Fulham both did to us.

Viewing Arsenal allowing us to have the ball as us dominating is really going to screw your objective view of a game. Not realising it's by design is naïve. Inventing that we created chances apart from a couple of headers and declaring they didn't do so themselves is wilful denial of what you watched.

Funny cause we were winning the ball regularly from them in build up.

So if that's them letting us have the ball, I have no idea about the game.

 

[Misfit]

This is worrying. If Ange doesn't learn from his system shortcoming and evolves, I don't see him surviving next season. No matter how loved he is.

Yes. I'm not sure if that was addressed on the next season at Celtic. But it seems odd to make the same mistake again.

It's easily fixable though.

 

[EQP]

I agree.

Thought we were causing them a lot of problems by winning the ball in their build up.

We have to give Ange time and see where it leads to.

I think people are also reading his comments a little incorrectly.

I think what he is saying is of he thought set pieces made the biggest difference to making us a better team he'd work on that.

But he has limited time and he believes that drilling a way of playing into the team will be more beneficial long term.

Set pieces and the smaller details can be worked on deeper later.

Right now, we need to be a better team with and without the ball and are working on stuff like shape and patterns.

I also think Ange believes we need to cut out corners quicker to, which was our own undoing.

I disagree simply because he realized the issue in the 1st half with Vicario getting bullied by White and then decided in the 2nd half to have Sarr step in and protect Vicario.

So it's a bit disingenuous by him to suggest that he can't correct that situation and that spending time on it will somehow take away from his overall team building ethos.

 

[Ray Ray]

He's either too stubborn or just naive. If this was Jose or Conte for example conceding the same chances week in week out they would be getting hell, but because we play slightly more positive football I feel Ange is being a given the benefit of the doubt.

Tactically we haven't learnt on the long balls or corners and it's a bit worrying.

Not calling for Ange out btw, but he needs to learn and adapt to the league, rather than dying by the sword with the same tactics every week.

 

[chas vs dave]

The only thing that is annoying me today us the fact that we haven't fixed the corner issue.

He should realise that it's a weakness.

 

[$hoguN]

We have to give him time but it’s hugely concerning that he is doing zero about the set pieces or the passing round the back. It’s clearly an issue costing us every week.

 

[spurs mental]

I disagree simply because he realized the issue in the 1st half with Vicario getting bullied by White and then decided in the 2nd half to have Sarr step in and protect Vicario.

So it's a bit disingenuous by him to suggest that he can't correct that situation and that spending time on it will somehow take away from his overall team building ethos.

I don't think it's even that we need to protect Vicario, it's the organisation, or lack or, that is causing most of the issues. Free headers for Havertz, Tomiyasu today and Schar v Newcastle.

 

[arunspurs]

If Ange is not stubborn, I can give free commonsense advice from my infinite football wisdom of watching football for 35 yrs...

i) Ditch Zonal marking. Go semi zonal, semi man marking. Make sure, you give clear responsibility to 1 or 2 players to be pest in 6 yard box, not allowing opponent player near Vicario.
ii) Ask Vicario to go down on slight contact Or bulldoze his way out. Mix it out.
iii) When you are in opponent half attacking , keeping high line is fine. But keep atleast 3 players back able to run back instead of having 2 v 2. At the very least this ensures your philosophy isnt affected much but at same time keeping a extra insurance at back.
iv) Opponents have stopped you playing out from back by marking you man for man. So, field a no9 type player upfront and hit the front man to play out. Mix it up & toy with opponent tactics....

 

[-Afri-Coy-]

Funny cause we were winning the ball regularly from them in build up.

So if that's them letting us have the ball, I have no idea about the game.

The lads were proper up for it for large parts of the game today, the first break we had would’ve been a goal had Kulu released the cross quicker and not held onto the ball.

We fought every second ball too, I was honestly impressed to see that level of desire again. It’s been missing for weeks.

 

[Rage]

I'll explain but tbh I thought it was pretty obvious.

What happens is you put your defensive players into sections roughly 2m apart. That area is then their responsibility, and that's why they can't leave it.

The opposition then rush a small area in unison creating an overload. This means not only do they now have a numbers advantage in that small 2m area but they also have momentum over a static player with no run up. The goals today are a great example of this. An Arsenal surge in number from the back post to the front post. Not only do our defenders have no idea they are coming but are swarmed by the time ball gets there.

You see the attacking team has the advantage of knowing roughly where the set piece taker is going to try and put the ball. Our guys are just standing there hoping it falls on one of their heads.

This entirely. This ridiculous approach has cost more teams than us. Every analyst agrees that zonal marking is utterly useless, yet, for some reason, some coaches still insist on implementing.

It’s like in war - you have visibility of an enemy that is going to attack in a certain region - what do you do. Well, if you’re spurs, you still protect the entire line, in conflict, you gravitate to where the threat is. May not be quite that simplistic but I do believe that people on the field should be more active to situations rather than being purely passive and reactive.

Reactivity is defined as an act that is in done post a positive action. Therefore, late, by definition, defensive.

 

[Mr Pink]

The only thing that is annoying me today us the fact that we haven't fixed the corner issue.

He should realise that it's a weakness.

Could well of won today had it been addressed.

 

[floydiohead]

Calm the fuck down and remember the state of the squad before he joined.

He’s still forced to play bang average players when someone in our XI is injured or out of form.

The drop off from Udogie and Davies is absolutely huge. We’re forced to play Hojbjerg because Bissouma is so badly out of form and let’s be honest, Pierre ain’t good enough either.

If this is still happening after the summer then he deserves digging out.

Aside from our defending of set pieces I’m still willing to give him a pass for this season.

No one is having a go because he is forced to play Davies instead of Udogie. The problem is the utter naivety in him expecting Davies to play like Udogie, until some way into the second half.

 

[Impspur1]

Well, one thing is for sure: if he stays stubborn and we keep conceding like we are, he won't be around long.

Sadly yes. Early season form maybe masked defensive deficiencies. We were carving sides open but aren’t so much now. Better in parts today though.