Tottenham 0 - 1 Newcastle United - 10/11/13 - Post-match reaction from page 43

[Hughesy]

14 brilliant saves... 

[BrettNUFC]

Tim Krul pulling off 14 brilliant saves.

 

Soz like, I just had to quote this for posterity. It's utterly crackers mate.

 

[Guest firetotheworks]

'Relying on the oppositions toothlessness' is a bit of a strange way of putting it though I think. I mean, obviously if Chelsea et al play to their potential they will beat us, that's just an unavoidable fact. In reality though, they didn't and/or we resisted them.

 

The reality is also that we're not playing to our potential by relying upon it. You can't plan and account for Chelsea being s*** in front of goal and Tim Krul pulling off 14 brilliant saves. Therefore the game plan is either isn't sustainable or needs to be tweaked to reduce their chances either through better defending or by being a bigger or more prolonged threat ourselves. We can do it, but it needs to be for longer periods than 15 minutes or even just 1 half.

 

I believe that we have a very good team and that it can be utilised in a better way than it is at the moment, even against the best teams in the league. That does not in any way imply that I want us to or expect us to dominate teams. It means that I want us to rely upon ourselves to win, rather than doing it for a bit and then stopping and relying on the opposition to lose.

 

Brett is perfectly capable of fighting his own battles, but I can't let the bolded bit past - especially when you accuse him of twisting arguments or embellishing or exaggerating or so on (which you have, in this thread.)

 

Chelsea were not s*** in front of goal. That is an outright misrepresentation. Terry's missed two headed chances. Hazard's chance was on the angle and while you might argue he should have put it on target it was a good shot that went just wide. We beat Chelsea becayse we nullified their attack, not because their attack didn't turn up on the day or they missed enough chances to be "s*** in front of goal".

 

Tim Krul did not [pull] off 14 brilliant saves. That is hyperbole, an exaggeration. He did make a lot of saves, but some of these were regulation, some were 'good' saves and, yes, there were some "brilliant saves". But to suggest that we only won because of "14 brilliant saves" is a fallacy. We won thanks to the ruthlessness of Remy, the discipline of the midfield, the resolution of the defence and an excellent performance from Krul.

 

I can dig what you're saying about how we might be 'too' defensive and that you'd like to see us as being more expansive, but you have to acknowledge the validity of the argument that we've got some excellent results against some very good teams, and that as... unpleasant as the tactics might be you can't argue against their effectiveness. You spoke earlier of a middle ground - well, you were right. The tactics aren't great. Neither are the tactics s****. They are effective and have given us some excellent results. I don't think you can put those three results wholly and solely down to the opposition having a bad day...

 

Good post.

 

Not at all and I'm not saying that it was solely down to the opposition having a bad day, but I still think that both results were heavily reliant upon factors that you cannot account for before a match. I thought the tactics were spot on against Spurs first half, it was second half that we stopped doing what we'd been doing and just defended.

 

I still think that Chelsea were shit in front of goal and had chances that they should have scored.

 

Spurs should have won and would have if Krul hadn't have had a blinder. Regardless of the arbitrary quality of Krul's saves, he still made 14 saves from shots that were allowed, which is a record in a premier league match from, at least, 2006.

 

It's not like I'm ignoring the fact that we had to score in order to win. It's that that was an effective way to play and a way that was working for us, but we abandoned it and just defended for the entirety of the second half.

 

The results are excellent, but that doesn't automatically mean that the performances were either. The main point, putting a positive angle on it is, is more that we've seen glimses that we can do it, we just need to do it for longer periods than just 10-15 minutes here and there, or a half at a time, or just until we score. It should be the way that we play and it should be drawn upon as a type of defense against the opposition in itself.

[merlin]

Fwiw, had Spurs of scored, i think we would have stepped up and scored again like we did against Villa. I'm not buying the fact had they of scored we would have crumbled and them went on to win.

 

Well I'm not buying your theory either - I reckon if Spurs had scored within 10 minutes of the restart, we would have crumbled like a broken biscuit...Gouffran was protecting Santon and as soon as he started to fade, Spurs ran Santon ragged. They would have taken heart from a goal and only Krul stopped that happening.

 

Reality check needed......

[Guest firetotheworks]

Tim Krul pulling off 14 brilliant saves.

 

Soz like, I just had to quote this for posterity. It's utterly crackers mate.

 

 

I didn't even realise that I'd typed that, tbf. He still pulled off 14 saves man, a handful of which were excellent. You don't rely upon that as a form of defense. It's the absolute last form of defense.

 

[BrettNUFC]

Fwiw, had Spurs of scored, i think we would have stepped up and scored again like we did against Villa. I'm not buying the fact had they of scored we would have crumbled and them went on to win.

 

Well I'm not buying your theory either - I reckon if Spurs had scored within 10 minutes of the restart, we would have crumbled like a broken biscuit...Gouffran was protecting Santon and as soon as he started to fade, Spurs ran Santon ragged. They would have taken heart from a goal and only Krul stopped that happening.

 

Reality check needed......

 

Were you at the Liverpool game saying the same thing? If Suarez or Sturridge score here they are going on to win this? We aren't that side anymore who just crumble at the first sign of pressure.

[Guest firetotheworks]

If your luck is in, it can work an absolute treat.

 

Soz like, I just had to quote this for posterity. It's utterly crackers mate.

 

Your going to ride your luck when your inferior to the opposition setting up with this gameplan, you know with the quality your up against they will get one/two good chances to score when they have the ball for large periods of the game, it's expected.

 

Spurs had loads of chances man, hence the multiple MOTM and sections entirely devoted to Tim Krul. The point is that riding your luck doesn't "work an absolute treat" because it's not a plan, it's uncontrollable.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

But 'riding your luck' isn't part of the plan anyway, surely? It's just something you have to do when a team is on top of you and manages to create chances. It's not something we want or expect to rely on, it's just something that helps against teams with a load of quality attackers.

 

I do agree that we need to keep the ball better when under pressure though, that's something we can plan for and work on.

[Guest neesy111]

We deserved to win yesterday, we scored more than Spurs.  Pretty simple in it.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Fwiw, had Spurs of scored, i think we would have stepped up and scored again like we did against Villa. I'm not buying the fact had they of scored we would have crumbled and them went on to win.

 

Well I'm not buying your theory either - I reckon if Spurs had scored within 10 minutes of the restart, we would have crumbled like a broken biscuit...Gouffran was protecting Santon and as soon as he started to fade, Spurs ran Santon ragged. They would have taken heart from a goal and only Krul stopped that happening.

 

Reality check needed......

 

Were you at the Liverpool game saying the same thing? If Suarez or Sturridge score here they are going on to win this? We aren't that side anymore who just crumble at the first sign of pressure.

 

Have to agree, just about. I'm always worried about us, but I think we've shown good character in a lot of situations now, and we definitely don't usually give up.

[Guest firetotheworks]

But 'riding your luck' isn't part of the plan anyway, surely? It's just something you have to do when a team is on top of you and manages to create chances. It's not something we want or expect to rely on, it's just something that helps against teams with a load of quality attackers.

 

I do agree that we need to keep the ball better when under pressure though, that's something we can plan for and work on.

 

There's a limit. No one is saying that good teams won't create chances. A good team creating chance after chance after chance is suicide and means that there's something wrong, regardless of whether they miss every single one. It isn't something that works, it's blind luck.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

But 'riding your luck' isn't part of the plan anyway, surely? It's just something you have to do when a team is on top of you and manages to create chances. It's not something we want or expect to rely on, it's just something that helps against teams with a load of quality attackers.

 

I do agree that we need to keep the ball better when under pressure though, that's something we can plan for and work on.

 

There's a limit. No one is saying that good teams won't create chances. A good team creating chance after chance after chance is suicide and means that there's something wrong, regardless of whether they miss every single one. It isn't something that works, it's blind luck.

 

Sort of. It's not blind luck if your keeper makes loads of saves, it's having a good keeper. If Friedel had nicked that ball off Remy's foot, that wouldn't have been Spurs getting lucky.

 

I agree we can't expect to repeat that Spurs game very often and get a win though, obviously. But I'm sure we already know that.

[Guest firetotheworks]

But 'riding your luck' isn't part of the plan anyway, surely? It's just something you have to do when a team is on top of you and manages to create chances. It's not something we want or expect to rely on, it's just something that helps against teams with a load of quality attackers.

 

I do agree that we need to keep the ball better when under pressure though, that's something we can plan for and work on.

 

There's a limit. No one is saying that good teams won't create chances. A good team creating chance after chance after chance is suicide and means that there's something wrong, regardless of whether they miss every single one. It isn't something that works, it's blind luck.

 

Sort of. It's not blind luck if your keeper makes loads of saves, it's having a good keeper. If Friedel had nicked that ball off Remy's foot, that wouldn't have been Spurs getting lucky.

 

I agree we can't expect to repeat that Spurs game very often and get a win though, obviously. But I'm sure we already know that.

 

I know it wouldn't have been luck, because that would have been 1 out of what? 3 saves that Friedel made? Krul made 14 saves, the blind luck involved was Krul having a blinder like that and on one occassion it just hitting him in the face . It's not something that you can account for at all and, like you said, it won't happen every week, or even again this season, probably.

[BrettNUFC]

Hitting him in the face? You mean when Spurs got lucky their awful freekick took a wicked deflection which resulted in an excellent save and scramble 

[Guest firetotheworks]

Hitting him in the face? You mean when Spurs got lucky their awful freekick took a wicked deflection which resulted in an excellent save and scramble 

 

No, I mean when the ball hit him square in the face before MYM cleared it off the line. If that's not lucky then neither is "Spur's awful freekick taking a wicked deflection."

[Foluwashola]

It's not going to work every week. Thankfully we don't have to play at White Hart Lane every week though. If it were Norwich at home, I'd understand why there'd be an insistence on focusing on how 'lucky' we were. Fingers crossed we'll play our own game in a couple of weeks time though.

[BrettNUFC]

Hitting him in the face? You mean when Spurs got lucky their awful freekick took a wicked deflection which resulted in an excellent save and scramble 

 

No, I mean when the ball hit him square in the face before MYM cleared it off the line. If that's not lucky then neither is "Spur's awful freekick taking a wicked deflection."

 

Aye course it was, we only ended up in that scramble due to Spurs getting fortunate in the first place though.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Hitting him in the face? You mean when Spurs got lucky their awful freekick took a wicked deflection which resulted in an excellent save and scramble 

 

No, I mean when the ball hit him square in the face before MYM cleared it off the line. If that's not lucky then neither is "Spur's awful freekick taking a wicked deflection."

 

Aye course it was, we only ended up in that scramble due to Spurs getting fortunate in the first place though.

 

and...? I didn't even mention Spurs' having any luck.

[Benwell Lad]

'Relying on the oppositions toothlessness' is a bit of a strange way of putting it though I think. I mean, obviously if Chelsea et al play to their potential they will beat us, that's just an unavoidable fact. In reality though, they didn't and/or we resisted them.

 

The reality is also that we're not playing to our potential by relying upon it. You can't plan and account for Chelsea being shit in front of goal and Tim Krul pulling off 14 brilliant saves. Therefore the game plan is either isn't sustainable or needs to be tweaked to reduce their chances either through better defending or by being a bigger or more prolonged threat ourselves. We can do it, but it needs to be for longer periods than 15 minutes or even just 1 half.

 

I believe that we have a very good team and that it can be utilised in a better way than it is at the moment, even against the best teams in the league. That does not in any way imply that I want us to or expect us to dominate teams. It means that I want us to rely upon ourselves to win, rather than doing it for a bit and then stopping and relying on the opposition to lose.

 

Brett is perfectly capable of fighting his own battles, but I can't let the bolded bit past - especially when you accuse him of twisting arguments or embellishing or exaggerating or so on (which you have, in this thread.)

 

Chelsea were not shit in front of goal. That is an outright misrepresentation. Terry's missed two headed chances. Hazard's chance was on the angle and while you might argue he should have put it on target it was a good shot that went just wide. We beat Chelsea becayse we nullified their attack, not because their attack didn't turn up on the day or they missed enough chances to be "shit in front of goal".

 

Tim Krul did not "[pull] off 14 brilliant saves". That is hyperbole, an exaggeration. He did make a lot of saves, but some of these were regulation, some were 'good' saves and, yes, there were some "brilliant saves". But to suggest that we only won because of "14 brilliant saves" is a fallacy. We won thanks to the ruthlessness of Remy, the discipline of the midfield, the resolution of the defence and an excellent performance from Krul.

I can dig what you're saying about how we might be 'too' defensive and that you'd like to see us as being more expansive, but you have to acknowledge the validity of the argument that we've got some excellent results against some very good teams, and that as... unpleasant as the tactics might be you can't argue against their effectiveness. You spoke earlier of a middle ground - well, you were right. The tactics aren't great. Neither are the tactics shite. They are effective and have given us some excellent results. I don't think you can put those three results wholly and solely down to the opposition having a bad day...

 

That really is very well put.

[Scoreboard82]

Disappointed that MotD didn't shown Dawson cleaning out Sissoko.

my thoughts exactly.  Didn't even merit a mention in their opinion. If that had been the other way round, they'd be saying how the nufc player should get an umpteen game ban and play the incident on repeat for 10 mins.

[Dr Venkman]

 

But 'riding your luck' isn't part of the plan anyway, surely? It's just something you have to do when a team is on top of you and manages to create chances. It's not something we want or expect to rely on, it's just something that helps against teams with a load of quality attackers.

 

I do agree that we need to keep the ball better when under pressure though, that's something we can plan for and work on.

 

Eh? Pardew talks about luck and magic all the time

[Incognito]

We could not have argued had we lost.  But frankly I don't give a toss. Fact is  though,  allowing a team to have so many clear cut chances isn't sustainable .

[Dave]

These were bonus points tbh, not that they're any less valuable but we're no further forward if we can't back these two wins up against Norwich and West Brom. Those are the proper test, games we should win. There's no excuse for confidence not being high and barring a sudden injury crisis we should be putting in good performances too. We have several good players in great form.

 

Though I've no doubt whatsoever that should we fail to win then Chelsea/Spurs will be used to gloss over it and claim how ace we are.

 

[NG32]

These were bonus points tbh, not that they're any less valuable but we're no further forward if we can't back these two wins up against Norwich and West Brom. Those are the proper test, games we should win. There's no excuse for confidence not being high and barring a sudden injury crisis we should be putting in good performances too. We have several good players in great form.

 

Though I've no doubt whatsoever that should we fail to win then Chelsea/Spurs will be used to gloss over it and claim how ace we are.

 

 

Exactly.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

 

But 'riding your luck' isn't part of the plan anyway, surely? It's just something you have to do when a team is on top of you and manages to create chances. It's not something we want or expect to rely on, it's just something that helps against teams with a load of quality attackers.

 

I do agree that we need to keep the ball better when under pressure though, that's something we can plan for and work on.

 

Eh? Pardew talks about luck and magic all the time

 

OK.