Topic: Attack, attack. Attack, attack, attack!!!

[shanklyboy]

There are few better attacking teams in the league than Spurs. In fact since I started watching football Spurs have never ever been described as anything but an attacking team full of flair. At the same time they have hardly ever been described as a team that was difficult to beat.
Unfortunately at the moment, they have once again found it difficult to defend.
Roy Evans had the same problems during his tenure and Houllier had more of balance to his teams eventually. That’s the crux of the matter, getting the correct balance.

Our goals for column would suggest that we are neither a defensive side nor one that is overly cautious.
Playing a game less than those around us we have scored only 4 less than Man Utd, 5 more than Man City and 1 more than Chelsea, who are all above us in the league. Are Chelsea a more defensive side than us?

We have also scored 3 less than Everton who are below us. Are we more defensive than Everton?

Spurs have scored the same amount of goals as Arsenal.  You can see from the league table what both teams’ positions are which proves the point about finding the right balance.


                                                 F      A   GD   PTS

1. Arsenal                                   42    16    26    50
2. Manchester United                   38     11   27     48
3. Chelsea                                  33    16   17     44
4. Manchester City                      29     22    7     39
5. Liverpool                                34     13   21    38
6. Everton                                  37     22   15    36

12.Tottenham Hotspur                  42    38    4     24
 

Much is made of us letting the opposition worry about us rather than the other way around.
I would suggest that opinion does Rafa Benitez a massive disservice. Such is his professionalism and attention to detail that every team is treated the same way. Prior to the game the same respect is given to Arsenal and their strengths and weaknesses as it is to Derby County.
This is to get the best from us rather than him being overly defensive. As I say, the goals for column would say we are certainly not defensive or over cautious.

It’s also been stated on here that Arsenal, Man Utd etc wouldn’t adopt a cautious attitude.
I would say that this is true about Arsenal to a certain extent. However it certainly hasn't applied to Man Utd when they played us at Anfield over the past 2 seasons. On both occasions they changed their formation from 4-4-2 to 4-5-1 and had hardly any attempts on goal.
 The same can be said for Man City who despite not losing a game at home adopted an overly defensive formation and attitude against us.

Chelsea won back to back titles by winning 1 -0 and Arsenal fans revel in their past reputation for games finishing  ‘1 - 0 to the Arsenal’.

During his recent rant at his own supporters in Old Trafford for their struggle against Birmingham, Alex Ferguson pointed out that Man Utd had won countless trophies by getting a 1 - 0 win. In fact they perfected the art of counter attacking football. Something which the same manager accused us of only possessing only that ability a few years ago at OT.

So maybe people are dissatisfied with our style of play but to say we are in any way negative or overly cautious is completely wrong
I doubt the fuss would be made if we were at the top of the league scoring fewer goals than those below us.
The only thing that proves your real dominance in games is the amount of chances you create and the number of goals you score. Our problem is not taking advantage of our dominance when we have the opportunity.
Nothing to do with being negative or over cautious.     

[lehman_bros]

well said, we are just lack of quality in front of goal!

[jrewing]

There's nothing wrong with attack, attack, attack attack attack attack.

But Bob Paisley said the "let the opposition worry about us" as a soundbite. It was to instill fear in the opposition. Of course he worried about the opposition. you've got to respect them at least.

Unless they're Everton. 

[woof]

It’s also been stated on here that Arsenal, Man Utd etc wouldn’t adopt a cautious attitude.
I would say that this is true about Arsenal to a certain extent. However it certainly hasn't applied to Man Utd when they played us at Anfield over the past 2 seasons. On both occasions they changed their formation from 4-4-2 to 4-5-1 and had hardly any attempts on goal.
 The same can be said for Man City who despite not losing a game at home adopted an overly defensive formation and attitude against us.

Chelsea won back to back titles by winning 1 -0 and Arsenal fans revel in their past reputation for games finishing  ‘1 - 0 to the Arsenal’.

During his recent rant at his own supporters in Old Trafford for their struggle against Birmingham, Alex Ferguson pointed out that Man Utd had won countless trophies by getting a 1 - 0 win. In fact they perfected the art of counter attacking football. Something which the same manager accused us of only possessing only that ability a few years ago at OT.

So maybe people are dissatisfied with our style of play but to say we are in any way negative or overly cautious is completely wrong
I doubt the fuss would be made if we were at the top of the league scoring fewer goals than those below us.
The only thing that proves your real dominance in games is the amount of chances you create and the number of goals you score. Our problem is not taking advantage of our dominance when we have the opportunity.
Nothing to do with being negative or over cautious.     

Good points.
The Scums are good at it - attack all out against lesser teams (which they pulverise) and play the counter attacking game against more defensive teams. And when they do counter attack, they do it with such venom & potency and convert the tiny number of chances which are afforded to them. In Torres, we have that capability but he can't do it alone. Therefore, we need a better striking partner for him, who can also score goals out of half chances

[BigV]

I don't think it's difficult. The more intentional you are with the moves, i.e. some sort of 'pattern of play', the players get better at it. The better players will start to improvise and you'll have decent attack. Just watch how Arsenal & Scums attack. They are all very similar, no matter who's in position.

Good points on this thread. I agree with kkhaku. Given that we have limited budget, finding a good partner for Torres will only leverage the investment made on Torres otherwise it's just a waste of resources. Next is getting a better left winger who can score goals and has pace.

The moves will be intentional, but at the same time natural - they are the instincts of the players.  If you play naturally, day in day out in training, the patterns of play become instinctive, the squad becomes one.  If you vary things every other day, it's difficult to find that cohesion.

The reason Arsenal play the way they do is because they are atactical, they become accustomed to a way of playing and so whoever comes into the side, fits in.  The problem is, nearly every player in the Arsenal squad is technically competent - that is the primary component of their players whereas we have a lot of players who lack this. 

Our priorities need to change when it comes to transfers and team selections: high level of technique - intelligence, control, touch.  I must admit, I feel that our primary criteria is defensive discipline.

[woof]

The moves will be intentional, but at the same time natural - they are the instincts of the players.  If you play naturally, day in day out in training, the patterns of play become instinctive, the squad becomes one.  If you vary things every other day, it's difficult to find that cohesion.

The reason Arsenal play the way they do is because they are atactical, they become accustomed to a way of playing and so whoever comes into the side, fits in.  The problem is, nearly every player in the Arsenal squad is technically competent - that is the primary component of their players whereas we have a lot of players who lack this. 

Our priorities need to change when it comes to transfers and team selections: high level of technique - intelligence, control, touch.  I must admit, I feel that our primary criteria is defensive discipline.

If the players can be training to hold their defensive line, they can be training for an attacking one too. You are right, not everyone is technically competent to execute the moves that Rafa devised. I still believe everyone can be coached the moves but whether it is executed properly is an entirely different proposition. Good example are Riise and Momo

[ouestlereferee]

Our priorities need to change when it comes to transfers and team selections: high level of technique - intelligence, control, touch.  I must admit, I feel that our primary criteria is defensive discipline.

I would argue they have already started to change in this direction although I would admit it's early days.  My suggestion would be that Lucas fits very obviously in this mould.  If you look at signings since Jan 06:
Fowler
Agger
Gonzalez
Pennant
Kuyt
Bellamy
Arbeloa
Mascherano
Benayoun
Torres
Babel
Lucas

I would say that all of those in italics fit the mould that you are talking about.  Good touch, quick (not all are lightening but none are slow - I would guess all our other players who would get beaten by all of these in a race with the sole exception of Gerrard), varying intellignece - probably depends on the role anyway.   Compare this to before when players like Crouch & Sissoko came in.  The only two (outfield) players who wouldn't look out of place in the list above would be Garcia & Alonso (has zero pace, but passing & touch is as good as it gets).

However he has worked with a constrained budget and I think the players in bold represent value players - ones he thought had a floundering career that could be rescued OR ones that he felt offered more quality that their price suggested.  Some of these players worked out, some didn't but you can see where he is going.

Kuyt is the obvious standout.  Lacks pace & a good touch.  Is more of a physical player.  The more I think of him, the less I understand why he was the man Rafa wanted.  Anyway that's for a different thread.

[kkhaku]

It’s also been stated on here that Arsenal, Man Utd etc wouldn’t adopt a cautious attitude.
I would say that this is true about Arsenal to a certain extent. However it certainly hasn't applied to Man Utd when they played us at Anfield over the past 2 seasons. On both occasions they changed their formation from 4-4-2 to 4-5-1 and had hardly any attempts on goal.
 The same can be said for Man City who despite not losing a game at home adopted an overly defensive formation and attitude against us.

Chelsea won back to back titles by winning 1 -0 and Arsenal fans revel in their past reputation for games finishing  ‘1 - 0 to the Arsenal’.

During his recent rant at his own supporters in Old Trafford for their struggle against Birmingham, Alex Ferguson pointed out that Man Utd had won countless trophies by getting a 1 - 0 win. In fact they perfected the art of counter attacking football. Something which the same manager accused us of only possessing only that ability a few years ago at OT.

So maybe people are dissatisfied with our style of play but to say we are in any way negative or overly cautious is completely wrong
I doubt the fuss would be made if we were at the top of the league scoring fewer goals than those below us.
The only thing that proves your real dominance in games is the amount of chances you create and the number of goals you score. Our problem is not taking advantage of our dominance when we have the opportunity.
Nothing to do with being negative or over cautious.     

First of all, the stats don't tell the whole story. In fact they can skew the truth quite horribly. So lets not go by our goal difference as an indicator of our attacking mentality.

There's nothing wrong with winning 1 nil, and there's nothing wrong with scoring on the counter, playing badly and still winning, and all that jazz.

The problem is, we're not doing it. So you have to ask yourself, do we really generate enough chances, to give us the opportunity to scrape out a 1 nil victory? Do we really look to generate counterattacks when we're under pressure, or are we paying more attention to getting posession back and gaining control of the match again?

I refuse to believe that its simply down to quality of players that our attack is suffering. We have one of the worlds best strikers and one of the worlds attacking midfielders who are both on form. Our defense, although ravaged thru injury has still managed to concede less than Arsenals. We've cleared out deadwood like Zenden, and Gonzales. Momo barely gets a game. Yet we're still in 4th. We continue to come up short against lower table teams, especially at home. I'm sure quality of players and finishing has something to do with it, but I'm absolutely certain that our mentality is not as attack minded as it should be. Just watching the matches should tell you this, especially when comparing to the way the top teams play. There isnt any urgency, no risks taken, no presence in the area etc etc. Are you telling me you don't see these things when you watch us play?

[ouestlereferee]

I refuse to believe that its simply down to quality of players that our attack is suffering. We have one of the worlds best strikers and one of the worlds attacking midfielders who are both on form. Our defense, although ravaged thru injury has still managed to concede less than Arsenals. We've cleared out deadwood like Zenden, and Gonzales. Momo barely gets a game. Yet we're still in 4th. We continue to come up short against lower table teams, especially at home. I'm sure quality of players and finishing has something to do with it, but I'm absolutely certain that our mentality is not as attack minded as it should be. Just watching the matches should tell you this, especially when comparing to the way the top teams play. There isnt any urgency, no risks taken, no presence in the area etc etc. Are you telling me you don't see these things when you watch us play?

I think this is a key point.

I don't think it's down to a squad full of inferior players - rather a lowest common denominator approach.  We have players who are either immobile, have a poor first touch, or both.  The best example I can think of to illustrate this is watching how Lucas performs with Kewell versus Kuyt - the latter does not have the touch or vision to pick out the runs, is more likely to lose the ball, and then Lucas will look poor & out of position.  On the other hand, if he is through on goal, he looks dangerous.  Same applied to pace, I simply don't buy the notion that other teams field 10 outfield players who are as quick as Agbonlahor, but I think the major difference is that all of the Utd & Arse players are all mobile wheras ours are not.  Furthermore the lack of blistering pace in their attacks is most notable with Fabregas & Scholes, neither of whom are electic, but both of whom have the intelligence that gives them that slight headstart, but both of whom are amongst the most integral players in their team.    Fabregas & Scholes are quick enough to keep up with an attack on the break, which could not be said for Kuyt & Crouch (possibly others two).  So, IMHO our pace & touch is reduced to that of the lowest common denominator.   Sissoko was one such weaker link, and has been replaced by Masch.  However some of the forwards have not developed/been replaced yet and they continue to hold us back.

I also feel Rafa has not brought the same kind of expertise to attack as he has to defence - yet.  I hope in time we will have some rehearsed moves (Utd's goal against us; & Valencia against us - with that sublime 2nd goal).  Hanging on to Masch and keeping the defence settled for the next couple of years will give us a platform of which to do this.....

[woof]

Under Rafa, we have demonstrated we can play a good attacking game - crisp passes, slicing up the opponent's defence and killer finishing. So what's changed? It's all up in the head. After the Scums game, I just thought we lost it a little up there, in the head. No one wants to take the initiative and there is no urgency. Could it be that the team is adjusting to Alonso's presence? I don't know

[BigV]

If the players can be training to hold their defensive line, they can be training for an attacking one too. You are right, not everyone is technically competent to execute the moves that Rafa devised. I still believe everyone can be coached the moves but whether it is executed properly is an entirely different proposition. Good example are Riise and Momo

Training a defence doesn't need to be drilled either, these are all match situations.  As long as the defenders have the raw skills, they just need to get accustomed to playing with each other.  Football is a very simple game.

Our lack of identity on the pitch is very frustrating - we really don't have one.  We're like a chameleon each time we step out on the pitch.  It's great when we get it right, but too often we'll get it wrong and we can work our way out of it.

[kkhaku]

Under Rafa, we have demonstrated we can play a good attacking game - crisp passes, slicing up the opponent's defence and killer finishing. So what's changed? It's all up in the head. After the Scums game, I just thought we lost it a little up there, in the head. No one wants to take the initiative and there is no urgency. Could it be that the team is adjusting to Alonso's presence? I don't know

This is where you need a manager/coach who has a good relationship with the players. A motivator, or a man-manager or whatever its called these days. Pako's departure, or rather the decision not to bring in a replacement seems to have hurt us.

[kkhaku]

Our lack of identity on the pitch is very frustrating - we really don't have one.  We're like a chameleon each time we step out on the pitch.  It's great when we get it right, but too often we'll get it wrong and we can work our way out of it.

IMO, we pay dearly for Rafa's 'tinkering'. Slate me if you like, but to play 3 different formations in a two week period goes as far towards confusing our own players as it does the opposition. I keep having nightmares about that 4-3-3 with Crouch on the left trying to provide width (forgot who it was we were playing). Stability goes a long way I think. Like you said, players just need to learn how to play with each other. It cant be easy to do this if you're consistently playing with different formations, and at times different players. 

[woof]

This is where you need a manager/coach who has a good relationship with the players. A motivator, or a man-manager or whatever its called these days. Pako's departure, or rather the decision not to bring in a replacement seems to have hurt us.

I think most of us learned supporters agree on that point. I feel that sometimes Rafa barks too many instructions. He should let them think for themselves a little. In circumstances like these, we need an on-field general. Unfortunately, Gerrard is not a motivator

[ouestlereferee]

Under Rafa, we have demonstrated we can play a good attacking game - crisp passes, slicing up the opponent's defence and killer finishing. So what's changed? It's all up in the head. After the Scums game, I just thought we lost it a little up there, in the head. No one wants to take the initiative and there is no urgency. Could it be that the team is adjusting to Alonso's presence? I don't know

Psychology is undoubtedly a part of it.  The scums did get under our skin that day - from Rooney's 5/6 infringements in the first 20-30mins of the game to Anderson squaring up to Gerrard.  I felt the only one of our players who was up for matching this was Mascherano.  All of their 11 were.  Who else in our squad is up for a fight like this though?  Mascherano (obviously), Gerrard (occasionally), and Agger.  I'd have my doubts about anyone else but I do like Torres' alternative attitude to it.

That said, the real essence of the game is that they scored a slightly fortunate goal from an exceptionally well drill set piece (I say slightly fortunate, because these don't always go in, but you have to give them credit for having such a chance up their sleeves in the first place), and then as we had to break them down they attacked our confidence, and whatever the combination of our talent & confidence was not good enough to do so...

[BigV]

I would argue they have already started to change in this direction although I would admit it's early days.  My suggestion would be that Lucas fits very obviously in this mould.  If you look at signings since Jan 06:
Fowler
Agger
Gonzalez
Pennant
Kuyt
Bellamy
Arbeloa
Mascherano
Benayoun
Torres
Babel
Lucas

I would say that all of those in italics fit the mould that you are talking about.  Good touch, quick (not all are lightening but none are slow - I would guess all our other players who would get beaten by all of these in a race with the sole exception of Gerrard), varying intellignece - probably depends on the role anyway.   Compare this to before when players like Crouch & Sissoko came in.  The only two (outfield) players who wouldn't look out of place in the list above would be Garcia & Alonso (has zero pace, but passing & touch is as good as it gets).

However he has worked with a constrained budget and I think the players in bold represent value players - ones he thought had a floundering career that could be rescued OR ones that he felt offered more quality that their price suggested.  Some of these players worked out, some didn't but you can see where he is going.

Kuyt is the obvious standout.  Lacks pace & a good touch.  Is more of a physical player.  The more I think of him, the less I understand why he was the man Rafa wanted.  Anyway that's for a different thread.

We have moved in the right direction relatively but not radically.  Gonzalez, Bellamy and Kuyt are 3 players who stand out as being not good enough.

The problem is that we persist with players who do fall short.  Trying to put myself in Rafa's shoes, I'd find it impossible to send someone like Riise or Kuyt onto the pitch because they're so disruptive to our play.

I think the most important thing for us to progress is to trim the squad of these influences and replace them with better skilled players - it's better for the majority of the squad who I do feel can play well enough.

[ouestlereferee]

I think most of us learned supporters agree on that point. I feel that sometimes Rafa barks too many instructions. He should let them think for themselves a little. In circumstances like these, we need an on-field general. Unfortunately, Gerrard is not a motivator

perhaps our leadership skills are just spread amongst too many players:
- mascherano's aggression
- carragher's oratorical skills
- alonso's brain
- torres' and gerrard's footballing inspiration

[BigV]

I think most of us learned supporters agree on that point. I feel that sometimes Rafa barks too many instructions. He should let them think for themselves a little. In circumstances like these, we need an on-field general. Unfortunately, Gerrard is not a motivator

This is why I think the hierarchy on the pitch is wrong too.  Our captain is a great player, but on the pitch he's not an especially intelligent one, and when it comes to controlling a game for 90 minutes, he can't do that.  But his personality on the squad is overwhelming and I think something needs to be done to correct this. 

This is why I feel Alonso should be made captain because he does possess the qualities to control the game and we should build the team around his creativity. 

[ouestlereferee]

We have moved in the right direction relatively but not radically.  Gonzalez, Bellamy and Kuyt are 3 players who stand out as being not good enough.

agree fully.  you do understand my point about gonzalez being a value opportunity rafa saw at the time though?  and bellamy, whilst not being good enough, was bought on the back of his best ever season at blackburn.  the fact that his run with us reverted back to his long-term form perhaps means he was a bad buy?  nevertheless he was sold at a profit.  kuyt, i find an absolutely baffling buy.  i can't justify that other than his goal rates in holland.  scratch the surface (i.e. youtube) and you'd become sceptical - not a good sign.  he didn't even perform well in the world cup!

The problem is that we persist with players who do fall short.  Trying to put myself in Rafa's shoes, I'd find it impossible to send someone like Riise or Kuyt onto the pitch because they're so disruptive to our play.

Perhaps non-footballing reasons i.e. shop-window.

Also because Rafa has had fairly shit luck with injuries this season.  And Riise & Kuyt are two of the fittest players at the club - they are rarely injured.  Aurelio has never managed more than a handful of consecutive games since he got here.  This season Finnan's started to get more injuries too.  And we know about injuries to Agger, Pennant, and Kewell.  So all this means there are more game-minutes needing to be filled at LB & LM - and Riise is maybe the only option.  I would not at all be surprised if during the second half of the season we see Pennant on the right, Kewell on the left, and Yossi behind Torres.  Whilst you may not be a huge fan of any of those players, it eliminates those who presently are holding us back the most, IMHO.

I think the most important thing for us to progress is to trim the squad of these influences and replace them with better skilled players - it's better for the majority of the squad who I do feel can play well enough.

again, i agree.  but i think we're going in that direction - perhaps not as fast as you'd like, but going there nonetheless.

[ouestlereferee]

This is why I think the hierarchy on the pitch is wrong too.  Our captain is a great player, but on the pitch he's not an especially intelligent one, and when it comes to controlling a game for 90 minutes, he can't do that.  But his personality on the squad is overwhelming and I think something needs to be done to correct this. 

This is why I feel Alonso should be made captain because he does possess the qualities to control the game and we should build the team around his creativity. 

Is he aggressive enough though to be a good motivator?

[actionwang]

I think so~~

[woof]

Is he aggressive enough though to be a good motivator?

Same concern I have. We lack the inspirational leader on the field. Gerrard is as petulant as Rafa at times. Carra - well, half of the team can't understand what he says. I thought Kuyt has good leadership qualities but unfortunately, is not good enough to be in the First XI all the time

[woof]

That said, the real essence of the game is that they scored a slightly fortunate goal from an exceptionally well drill set piece (I say slightly fortunate, because these don't always go in, but you have to give them credit for having such a chance up their sleeves in the first place), and then as we had to break them down they attacked our confidence, and whatever the combination of our talent & confidence was not good enough to do so...

Yes, the Scums were fortunate but we can't use the same excuse for 2 seasons consecutively. The fact is we lost and didn't even create a clear chance. If we did, then we could say we were really unlucky

[BigV]

Fair points, but when you look at the quality of signings that were made at a similar time, they do look bad.  Berbatov and Anelka off the top of my head are hardly unknowns but they possess much more quality than the players we got and moved for not much more. 

Riise and Kuyt's reputations are being dragged through the mud every game they play, how will it help sell them?  Wouldn't it be better to preserve what reputation they have? 

Injuries have been bad, I think Agger has been a huge blow, a much bigger blow than the loss of a young centre-back ever should be.  His absence forces our side onto the backfoot at kickoff and it makes it difficult to build on from there.

I do agree we're going in the right direction, but I feel the transition doesn't need to be so slow.  I also think that if experienced players aren't showing their quality then, despite their age, give the likes of Insua and Babel more of a go.  We're not going to win the league anyway but at least those gifted younger players can improve faster and gel together to form a unit that is more cohesive.

[BigV]

Is he aggressive enough though to be a good motivator?

He doesn't need to be - whoever is, be it Mascherano or Carragher or Reina can still do that.  What matters though is that he's propelled to being the focal point of the team, the main man - he inspires through his quality.

[ouestlereferee]

Same concern I have. We lack the inspirational leader on the field. Gerrard is as petulant as Rafa at times. Carra - well, half of the team can't understand what he says. I thought Kuyt has good leadership qualities but unfortunately, is not good enough to be in the First XI all the time

So Masch, Reina, Agger, or Torres are the viable candidates?

Or maybe Pennant

[ouestlereferee]

Yes, the Scums were fortunate but we can't use the same excuse for 2 seasons consecutively. The fact is we lost and didn't even create a clear chance. If we did, then we could say we were really unlucky

Well it's not an excuse.  What I said was that they were slightly fortunate their chance went in, as even with the best of set-pieces you are merely taking chances, rather than have any guarantees.  Furthermore where the ball fell etc was a bit random.  That said, I said that you have to give them credit for at least trying something different like that.  We didn't - so in that sense, they deserved it on their inventiveness.

And I don't agree that you can't use the same explanation twice either.  Fact is they were slightly fortunate with their goal last year too.  But all credit to them, both years, for defending so well. 

[ouestlereferee]

Fair points, but when you look at the quality of signings that were made at a similar time, they do look bad.  Berbatov and Anelka off the top of my head are hardly unknowns but they possess much more quality than the players we got and moved for not much more. 

and this summer tottenham spent big on on darren bent, and i'm sure they think they got poor value compared to torres...

kuyt has been disappointing.  unfortunately berbatov has been a really easy example to rafa-bash - chelsea spent 4 or 5m more on malouda than sven did on elano - who would you rather have?

Riise and Kuyt's reputations are being dragged through the mud every game they play, how will it help sell them?  Wouldn't it be better to preserve what reputation they have? 

that's one of those hindsight is 20:20 things.  if shop-windowing was an intention, maye rafa thought they would play their way back into form?

Injuries have been bad, I think Agger has been a huge blow, a much bigger blow than the loss of a young centre-back ever should be.  His absence forces our side onto the backfoot at kickoff and it makes it difficult to build on from there.

Agger is the man.  He's almost 4 years younger than Vidic & Toure who are considered to be great "young" centre backs.  IMHO he's overtaken Finnan as being the most underrated player in the PL.

I do agree we're going in the right direction, but I feel the transition doesn't need to be so slow.  I also think that if experienced players aren't showing their quality then, despite their age, give the likes of Insua and Babel more of a go.  We're not going to win the league anyway but at least those gifted younger players can improve faster and gel together to form a unit that is more cohesive.

Yeah I'd agree here.  I think a side effect of rotation/large squad policy is that you have promised gametime to certain players and the CC, FA Cup, Lower PL games are being used for this.  I would have liked to see Rafa do more, for example in the Luton game, start Insua, with Riise @ LM, and Babel up front.  Sub Nemeth for Insua, with Riise to LB, Babel to LM, and Nemeth up front.  That kind of thing could & should be done more IMHO. 

[BigV]

I'm not comparing Benitez to Jol or Allardyce when I'm talking about Berbatov and Anelka, but he did go for poorer players, he read the market wrong. 

Bent was a ridiculous transfer, you're right, and Torres is outstanding.  You can't compare Elano to Malouda though, Elano had a much smaller reputation and came from Shakhtar Donetsk.

Agger is a player we should look forward to for a long time, but we do need someone else in the squad who possesses those qualities he brings. 

[ouestlereferee]

You can't compare Elano to Malouda though, Elano had a much smaller reputation and came from Shakhtar Donetsk.

why is this out of bounds?  just because sven has a fantastic scouting network or chelsea don't have one, doesn't mean that it's not a fantastic transfer.  they are similar (ish) players of about the same age making a step up to the PL.  i think the difference was something like £8m to £12m or something like that so they are ballpark comparisons.

Agger is a player we should look forward to for a long time, but we do need someone else in the squad who possesses those qualities he brings. 

agreed.  hopefully skrtel (if we sign him), has those.

[ouestlereferee]

I'm not comparing Benitez to Jol or Allardyce when I'm talking about Berbatov and Anelka, but he did go for poorer players, he read the market wrong. 
 

rafa may argue otherwise - still!  we know how much he values "mentality", and if these players didn't fit the bill, they may never have been on our shopping list in the first place.  so rafa might argue there was nobody who offered a more attractive package (to his ideas of attractive) to him.

[Pr0n]

There are few better attacking teams in the league than Spurs. In fact since I started watching football Spurs have never ever been described as anything but an attacking team full of flair. At the same time they have hardly ever been described as a team that was difficult to beat.
Unfortunately at the moment, they have once again found it difficult to defend.
Roy Evans had the same problems during his tenure and Houllier had more of balance to his teams eventually. That’s the crux of the matter, getting the correct balance.

Our goals for column would suggest that we are neither a defensive side nor one that is overly cautious.
Playing a game less than those around us we have scored only 4 less than Man Utd, 5 more than Man City and 1 more than Chelsea, who are all above us in the league. Are Chelsea a more defensive side than us?

We have also scored 3 less than Everton who are below us. Are we more defensive than Everton?

Spurs have scored the same amount of goals as Arsenal.  You can see from the league table what both teams’ positions are which proves the point about finding the right balance.


                                                 F      A   GD   PTS

1. Arsenal                                   42    16    26    50
2. Manchester United                   38     11   27     48
3. Chelsea                                  33    16   17     44
4. Manchester City                      29     22    7     39
5. Liverpool                                34     13   21    38
6. Everton                                  37     22   15    36

12.Tottenham Hotspur                  42    38    4     24
 

Much is made of us letting the opposition worry about us rather than the other way around.
I would suggest that opinion does Rafa Benitez a massive disservice. Such is his professionalism and attention to detail that every team is treated the same way. Prior to the game the same respect is given to Arsenal and their strengths and weaknesses as it is to Derby County.
This is to get the best from us rather than him being overly defensive. As I say, the goals for column would say we are certainly not defensive or over cautious.

It’s also been stated on here that Arsenal, Man Utd etc wouldn’t adopt a cautious attitude.
I would say that this is true about Arsenal to a certain extent. However it certainly hasn't applied to Man Utd when they played us at Anfield over the past 2 seasons. On both occasions they changed their formation from 4-4-2 to 4-5-1 and had hardly any attempts on goal.
 The same can be said for Man City who despite not losing a game at home adopted an overly defensive formation and attitude against us.

Chelsea won back to back titles by winning 1 -0 and Arsenal fans revel in their past reputation for games finishing  ‘1 - 0 to the Arsenal’.

During his recent rant at his own supporters in Old Trafford for their struggle against Birmingham, Alex Ferguson pointed out that Man Utd had won countless trophies by getting a 1 - 0 win. In fact they perfected the art of counter attacking football. Something which the same manager accused us of only possessing only that ability a few years ago at OT.

So maybe people are dissatisfied with our style of play but to say we are in any way negative or overly cautious is completely wrong
I doubt the fuss would be made if we were at the top of the league scoring fewer goals than those below us.
The only thing that proves your real dominance in games is the amount of chances you create and the number of goals you score. Our problem is not taking advantage of our dominance when we have the opportunity.
Nothing to do with being negative or over cautious.     

Good post.

[Pr0n]

Same concern I have. We lack the inspirational leader on the field. Gerrard is as petulant as Rafa at times. Carra - well, half of the team can't understand what he says. I thought Kuyt has good leadership qualities but unfortunately, is not good enough to be in the First XI all the time

Hopefully we can get masch on a permanent basis. In him we have the traits of someone who can lead by example. Tireless, no-nonsense efforts everytime he plays. Even if he is'nt the captain he is really good for the team.

[Cannon_Fodder42]

I think our goal difference is slightly misleading (in the same way that Everton's is) in that we've absolutely twatted a few teams which really gets your goal difference up.  Unfortunately, we've also scored 0 or 1 in a number of games, and that's where we suffer.  If you play four games and win one 8-1 and lose the others 1-0 you have a goal difference of +4.  If you win all four 2-1 you also have a goal difference of +4.  You'd be 9 points up though.

I think we've generally done a good job of not letting off when we go 2-0 up, ending up with 4+, but we need to have the CONSISTENCY in attack.  On our day, we'll belt most teams, but if our day is only 15 games of the year, we're always going to struggle.

I'm not saying we can't win when it's not our day, just in case you think I'm being overly negative!

[shanklyboy]

First of all, the stats don't tell the whole story. In fact they can skew the truth quite horribly. So lets not go by our goal difference as an indicator of our attacking mentality.

There's nothing wrong with winning 1 nil, and there's nothing wrong with scoring on the counter, playing badly and still winning, and all that jazz.

The problem is, we're not doing it. So you have to ask yourself, do we really generate enough chances, to give us the opportunity to scrape out a 1 nil victory? Do we really look to generate counterattacks when we're under pressure, or are we paying more attention to getting posession back and gaining control of the match again?

I refuse to believe that its simply down to quality of players that our attack is suffering. We have one of the worlds best strikers and one of the worlds attacking midfielders who are both on form. Our defense, although ravaged thru injury has still managed to concede less than Arsenals. We've cleared out deadwood like Zenden, and Gonzales. Momo barely gets a game. Yet we're still in 4th. We continue to come up short against lower table teams, especially at home. I'm sure quality of players and finishing has something to do with it, but I'm absolutely certain that our mentality is not as attack minded as it should be. Just watching the matches should tell you this, especially when comparing to the way the top teams play. There isnt any urgency, no risks taken, no presence in the area etc etc. Are you telling me you don't see these things when you watch us play?

Good points.
I see what I perceive to be the problem, which I have pointed out is our failing to convert the chances we create.That can be down to players not being technically competent to actually do the job or it can be just a case of 'on another day'.
How would you explain the chances Torres has without converting them. If Kuyt or Voronin miss them, they are the worlds worst.
If a chance goes in it changes a game completely. Look at the Man Utd game. If we had scored first, we may have had a field day as I believe it was already their mindset to hold out for a draw at worst but a win if possible.
At the same time we may have still been beaten, possibly by more, simply because we lack a bit of pace in key areas and they can exploit that.
Alternatively we may have scored more because we would have had more space to exploit.
Either way the goal changed the game completely.

We create chanaces, theres no doubt about that. Take one and you are changing draws into wins, which is a major factor in 3 points for a win.
Nothing to do with anything other than not taking chances.

[dnkw]

I remember reading an article a while ago (sorry, no link), the gist of which was that Rafa's teams had a particular quality of squeezing teams all over the pitch, and to do this required great positional discipline on the part of the players.

I also remember reading a different article (again no link, sorry) regarding the centre backs' distribution of the ball, wherein Rafa encouraged them to play longer balls because there was less chance of being hit on the counter attack.

If these are true then I could understand how that would lead to our attacking play having a restriction on how fluid and flexible it could be, and how much risk the team as a whole is allowed to take, if positional discipline and an over-riding desire not to leave the defence vulnerable are prioritised.

Thoughts?

[cuppatea]

We create chanaces, theres no doubt about that. Take one and you are changing draws into wins, which is a major factor in 3 points for a win.
Nothing to do with anything other than not taking chances.

We create some chances, but not nearly enough.

Look at the Man Utd game, for all of our possession, how many clear cut opportunities did we create? I can't think of any. In fact the best chance of the game, besides the goal, was the sitter Rooney missed from 6 yards out. That was our 6th league game in a row against Utd without scoring a single goal. That's 9 hours of football, and I can't remember thinking too often during that time "how the fuck have we missed that??!?!?!"

Same story against Arsenal this season. Many on here were lauding the fact we had more shots on target than they did, and yet almost all of them came from speculative long range efforts (think Crouch's 25 yard half volley) that barring a howler from the keeper were never going to go in. Arsenal on the other hand created (and thankfully missed) a 1 on 1 and 2 open goals from inside the box.

Even against Derby recently, our attempts to break them down amounted to little more than shooting from outside the box and hoping Gerrard or Torres (the only 2 top class attacking players in the entire squad) would create something out of nothing, which of course eventually happened. Seeing that kind of desperation creep in whenever we face a resolute defence is all too frequent an occurrence.

In summary, while I agree we don't take our chances enough, we also need to be creating a hell of a lot more than we currently do. Whether it's down to tactics, personnel, mentality, or a combination of all 3, until we improve significantly when it comes to converting possession into chances and chances into goals, I fear we'll remain Premiership also rans.

[Giono]

This is where you need a manager/coach who has a good relationship with the players. A motivator, or a man-manager or whatever its called these days. Pako's departure, or rather the decision not to bring in a replacement seems to have hurt us.

I agree 100%. We do miss Pako. Rafa has to get a replacement.

[Pr0n]

We create some chances, but not nearly enough.

Look at the Man Utd game, for all of our possession, how many clear cut opportunities did we create? I can't think of any. In fact the best chance of the game, besides the goal, was the sitter Rooney missed from 6 yards out. That was our 6th league game in a row against Utd without scoring a single goal. That's 9 hours of football, and I can't remember thinking too often during that time "how the fuck have we missed that??!?!?!"

Same story against Arsenal this season. Many on here were lauding the fact we had more shots on target than they did, and yet almost all of them came from speculative long range efforts (think Crouch's 25 yard half volley) that barring a howler from the keeper were never going to go in. Arsenal on the other hand created (and thankfully missed) a 1 on 1 and 2 open goals from inside the box.

Even against Derby recently, our attempts to break them down amounted to little more than shooting from outside the box and hoping Gerrard or Torres (the only 2 top class attacking players in the entire squad) would create something out of nothing, which of course eventually happened. Seeing that kind of desperation creep in whenever we face a resolute defence is all too frequent an occurrence.

In summary, while I agree we don't take our chances enough, we also need to be creating a hell of a lot more than we currently do. Whether it's down to tactics, personnel, mentality, or a combination of all 3, until we improve significantly when it comes to converting possession into chances and chances into goals, I fear we'll remain Premier League also rans.

Rather than creating a helluva lot more, we could do with creating more clear-cut chances. When it comes to half chances and promising situations - we create plenty. We're lacking in final ball/end product.

[shanklyboy]

We create some chances, but not nearly enough.

Look at the Man Utd game, for all of our possession, how many clear cut opportunities did we create? I can't think of any. In fact the best chance of the game, besides the goal, was the sitter Rooney missed from 6 yards out. That was our 6th league game in a row against Utd without scoring a single goal. That's 9 hours of football, and I can't remember thinking too often during that time "how the fuck have we missed that??!?!?!"

Same story against Arsenal this season. Many on here were lauding the fact we had more shots on target than they did, and yet almost all of them came from speculative long range efforts (think Crouch's 25 yard half volley) that barring a howler from the keeper were never going to go in. Arsenal on the other hand created (and thankfully missed) a 1 on 1 and 2 open goals from inside the box.

Even against Derby recently, our attempts to break them down amounted to little more than shooting from outside the box and hoping Gerrard or Torres (the only 2 top class attacking players in the entire squad) would create something out of nothing, which of course eventually happened. Seeing that kind of desperation creep in whenever we face a resolute defence is all too frequent an occurrence.

In summary, while I agree we don't take our chances enough, we also need to be creating a hell of a lot more than we currently do. Whether it's down to tactics, personnel, mentality, or a combination of all 3, until we improve significantly when it comes to converting possession into chances and chances into goals, I fear we'll remain Premier League also rans.

There’s a lot that I agree with, but to be honest you could pick any couple of games played by any of the top 4 teams and make a case for not creating too many chances in a game. Arsenal have less of a problem but in recent  weeks even they are not as fluid.
The example you give against Utd 'How the fuck have they missed that' ; I was thinking ‘How the fuck did they win that ‘.
I think against Man Utd the Torres header and the Kewell effort cleared off the line were very scorable. If they are so good at attacking how come they only had 1 shot on target? Simply because they didn’t have to chase the game as they had a bit of luck and took their chance.

For every game like this we can name games like Man City where we create MANY chances but don’t convert. As I said the first goal makes all the difference.

Create 2 chances and take 1.…walk away with 3 points is good enough for me.
However create 2 chances take 1 but let 1 in and everyone is screaming about how we don’t create enough chances.

How many missed chances  would be acceptable before you accepted that we DO create enough chances?