[Borys]

It was. Watch the second half of the Chelsea game again, as a random example. He'd pick up the ball then have to give it straight back to one of the centrebacks.

The problem isn't Carrick or Blind. It's trying to play out slowly from the back with a system that doesn't incorporate a midfield. All the opposition have to do is put two players high up the pitch and have their midfield press up behind them, and it takes most of our team out of the game.

As soon as teams do this, we should either be going more direct, playing a lot quicker, or dropping someone back to help Carrick/Blind so they don't have to give the ball back to the defence or try to play a pass through half the opposition team.

Instead we never seem to react to it at all. We seem determined to prove that our defenders can knock the ball around better than the likes of Xavi, Scholes, etc. It's never going to happen.

Excellent post, agreed 100%.

As soon as teams do this, we should either be going more direct, playing a lot quicker, or dropping someone back to help Carrick/Blind so they don't have to give the ball back to the defence or try to play a pass through half the opposition team.

Instead we never seem to react to it at all. We seem determined to prove that our defenders can knock the ball around better than the likes of Xavi, Scholes, etc. It's never going to happen.

I believe it goes down to lack of fit midfielders who can travel with the ball forward (Di Maria) or feel comfortable playing short passes in tight spaces (Herrera). Fellaini can be useful too, bringing the ball down to play directly from De Gea or our CBs.

We looked totally different against teams like Hull, QPR or Newcastle, who left our midfielders a lot of space to operate (in the middle).

Once those mentioned players get back and we start playing with more organization in midfield, our Centre Backs will be provided with many more passing options and we will be playing much better football I'm sure.

 

[mufcwarm92]

The game should've been out of sight by half time. Poor from us to let it become a contest.

 

[Borys]

Hard to believe we didn’t score at least one in the first half. Fair play to them, they had a few chances and a penalty appeal so I’m okay with a point in this away fixture.

First half was fantastic, Carrick, Mata and Young seem to really enjoy playing in this formation.

I would’ve never admit that before but I think we can actually see the signs of 3-5-2 working and as long as Di Maria is out, I think we should keep playing it.

It’s incredible that in the last 18 months we’ve bought 4 midfielders and all of them were unavailable for the last few games. We’re in a very good position considering how many options LvG had at his disposal (he was probably forced to play the same XI as two days before).

I’m very positive right now.

 

[Striker10]

We should have won but a draw in and of itself isn't bad. The bitch is drawing away to Villa. Against Villa we created feck all and ponced around the pitch like show ponys. Yesterday as chance after chance begging I couldn't help thinking typical. During our run we've not created that many chances but taken them. Yesterday we created enough to win 2/3 games easy. Watching Rooney breaking through only to control it behind himself was the start of a frustrating day for us BUT despite our problems we should be 6 points behind City and Chelsea. We can be encouraged by that and some of the performances.

 

[Havak]

Towards the end of the game I definitely felt like it was a decent point (and to be fair, away to Tottenham a draw isn't that bad of a result). Watching the game through once, I felt it was our own fault for not putting away one of our many good chances in the first half. Normally we'd have scored one or two and I felt there'd be no way back for Tottenham if that had happened. Sadly, we didn't and the game got scrappy in the second half and we showed some clear tiredness. A draw might have been a fair result if we take everything into account, but I don't think Spurs ever showed the level of dominance we did in the game, even when we were defending for long periods towards the end.

However, while I didn't want to sound bitter, having watched a lot of the key moments again, I feel that the ref was appalling... I hate having to make comments like that because it sounds like we're just salty about not getting the win. The ref was poor for both sides, but it was deeply disappointing to see him bottle a clear red card for the 'challenge' on Carrick. Sure, maybe Spurs should have had a penalty, but just a second before Rooney's man-handling of Kane, there was a clear attempt to block Rooney which forced this desperation to get to Kane even more. We were hard done by, but the main reason we didn't win is because we didn't score when we were on top and we have to hold our hands up for that.

The only thing I can criticise LvG for is maybe not putting Rooney up front.. I think he'd have scored if he was on the end of one of the chances made due to the form he's in and with all the defensive substitutions, Jones could have easily been pushed into midfield to free up Rooney's defensive duties.

 

[Fahad Jawaid]

It was. Watch the second half of the Chelsea game again, as a random example. He'd pick up the ball then have to give it straight back to one of the centrebacks.

The problem isn't Carrick or Blind. It's trying to play out slowly from the back with a system that doesn't incorporate a midfield. All the opposition have to do is put two players high up the pitch and have their midfield press up behind them, and it takes most of our team out of the game.

As soon as teams do this, we should either be going more direct, playing a lot quicker, or dropping someone back to help Carrick/Blind so they don't have to give the ball back to the defence or try to play a pass through half the opposition team.

Instead we never seem to react to it at all. We seem determined to prove that our defenders can knock the ball around better than the likes of Xavi, Scholes, etc. It's never going to happen.

I have felt the same since LVG took over, there is another thing i would like to add, whether we have played Carrick or Blind in the holding role, they are the only players coming deep to collect the ball, with Diamond i felt the reason we were creating chances for fun, was the likes of Di Maria and Herrera came deep at times to collect the ball, and moved it up the field, with 3-5-2 or this 4-1-4-1 only Carrick or Blind provides an option for defenders, and if the opposition team puts a player on them then our defenders resort to hoofing it up and we don't keep hold of the ball, which usually happens in away matches and hence our away performances have been disappointing.

I have grown up watching 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 at times with Utd, and we had Carrick and Scholes in the middle, and in tough away matches even the likes of Anderson, Fletcher and others making it three in the middle so we always had passing options, with Lvg i felt we would technically be at a different level and just like Barcelona with Xavi, Busquets, Iniesta all droped deep to collect the ball and start attacks, we would have something similar in style, on the otherhand its the complete opposite, we have only a single CM deep while it seems we play with two Am's and then two strikers.

Even against Chelsea at home our formation was something like this like wise against City etc.

Blind
Di Maria Fellani Janujaz
Rooney Mata
Rvp

 

[Momochiru]

The main issue I felt were that our strikers looked tired today. Falcao playing twice in 43 hours was always going to be questionable, and RVP is no spring chicken either. Carrick was rightly given a rest against Newcastle once the game was in doubt but he still looked knackered by the end.

Regarding injuries and "who could we have played instead" - the fact is that none of us know the actual injury situation nowadays thanks to LVGs inaccurate timescales and the "illness" that seems to take half the squad, and then somehow manages to break Fellainis ribs (as an example)... apparently. Still, Wilson could easily have had more gametime against Newcastle and/or started today. We had Pereira on the bench, why not use him? I never understand the idea of putting someone on the bench if you arent prepared to use them... its like Walcott going to the WC in 2006 (I think) and not playing whatsoever, why bloody bring him then?
The much maligned Fletcher could have played more, and allowed Rooney to go up front, in turn giving another of the strikers a rest. McNair or Jones could have been asked to spend some time in midfield to alleviate Carrick/Rooney.

The point is, there are always options, and I dont readily buy these phantom illnesses that have come up for Fellaini, Januzaj, Herrera etc only to then be told a couple of games later that they have managed to injure themselves whilst ill.

Basically, the first time in 85 games we pick the same XI and it is when we have two games in 43 hours, and then complain about players being tired. If Moyes did it he would be crucified on here and rightly so.

This whole post is terrible, but the bolded part is just cringeworthy. You are aware that we can use only 3 out of the 7 on the bench, which LVG did, right? Valencia and Evans had knocks and McNair looked like a disaster waiting to happen. Although not spectacular, LVG's subs were necessary. Not to mention that calling for giving a debut to an inexperienced youngster in a game of this magnitude is just daft. First his inexperience would've probably made us even weaker and second it would've done big damage to his confidence when everybody jumps on him how he cost us the game. There are times to give youngsters some minutes, but yesterday wasn't one.

I suggest LVG knows better who to play - his team tactics yesterday were spot on - we should've won the game if our strikers haven't decided to forget their shooting boots at home. We were unlucky not to be 3 goals up by the half time, but then we dug in and didn't allow to be turned over like last season or the Leicester game. That's great progress in my book and progress sometimes is a step back, two steps forward - there is no team who has ever won all their games. Just look at the in-form table: We are topping it together with City - we both have 23 points in the last 9 games, Chelsea is third with 20. 9 games unbeaten run is nothing to sneer at, especially considering that we had to play away to Spurs, Southampton and Arsenal and home to Pool and Newcastle. Only City has been on a longer run - 10 games; Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs are next with only 4 games unbeaten. If we keep this up we will definitely be challenging for the title come May.

So stop the negativity and give LVG some credit.

 

[RoadTrip]

This whole post is terrible, but the bolded part is just cringeworthy. You are aware that we can use only 3 out of the 7 on the bench, which LVG did, right? Valencia and Evans had knocks and McNair looked like a disaster waiting to happen. Although not spectacular, LVG's subs were necessary. Not to mention that calling for giving a debut to an inexperienced youngster in a game of this magnitude is just daft. First his inexperience would've probably made us even weaker and second it would've done big damage to his confidence when everybody jumps on him how he cost us the game. There are times to give youngsters some minutes, but yesterday wasn't one.

I suggest LVG knows better who to play - his team tactics yesterday were spot on - we should've won the game if our strikers haven't decided to forget their shooting boots at home. We were unlucky not to be 3 goals up by the half time, but then we dug in and didn't allow to be turned over like last season or the Leicester game. That's great progress in my book and progress sometimes is a step back, two steps forward - there is no team who has ever won all their games. Just look at the in-form table: We are topping it together with City - we both have 23 points in the last 9 games, Chelsea is third with 20. 9 games unbeaten run is nothing to sneer at, especially considering that we had to play away to Spurs, Southampton and Arsenal and home to Pool and Newcastle. Only City has been on a longer run - 10 games; Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs are next with only 4 games unbeaten. If we keep this up we will definitely be challenging for the title come May.

So stop the negativity and give LVG some credit.

To be honest this post is pretty cringeworthy too. If one is picking negatives, this is blowing the trumpet too far.

 

[ravelston]

To be honest this post is pretty cringeworthy too. If one is picking negatives, this is blowing the trumpet too far.

Why - it seems pretty accurate to me.

 

[Gannicus]

A draw itself against Spurs in good form at the Lane is a decent result, but it's hard to let go of the sense that we deserved all three points but our finishing let us down badly.

On to Stoke, where it's cold and windy...

 

[nick2004]

Is this offiside?

 

[Gannicus]

Is this offiside?

Funny you ask, as I was just watching it closely on my DVR a few minutes ago.

In real time, it looks offside. No complaints with the instant judgment the linesman had to make in a split second at White Hart Lane.

But I really don't see Falcao, who was in an offside position, interfering with play, as the term interfering is normally interpreted.

Jones was initially in an offside position and had the ball never touched a Spurs player the offside call would have been spot on. But a Spurs player (#25, no idea who that was), did get a touch on the ball when Jones was in an onside position, then Jones headed the ball in.

No offside, the goal should have stood. But it required video review to see it all clearly.

 

[Eric'sCollar]

@nick2004 Jones was offside, doesn't matter about any touch from a Spurs player, Jones is offside the moment it goes forward of RVP.

 

[saivet]

Is this offiside?

It's offside, though that video doesn't show it clearly.

 

[Gannicus]

@nick2004 Jones was offside, doesn't matter about any touch from a Spurs player, Jones is offside the moment it goes forward of RVP.

Not if Jones is not interfering with play at the moment he is offside. This happens all the time.

But to be very clear on this point no fair-minded human being on earth could blame the linesman for failing to parse it all out in real time. You have to see the replay from a bird's eye angle and even then watch it a few times before it all becomes clear.

The slight touch by #25 is the one that put Jones back onside, but it was virtually impossible for any of the officials to see it in real time.

There can be no complaints. Move on.

 

[Eric'sCollar]

Not if Jones is not interfering with play at the moment he is offside. This happens all the time.

But to be very clear on this point no fair-minded human being on earth could blame the linesman for failing to parse it all out in real time. You have to see the replay from a bird's eye angle and even then watch it a few times before it all becomes clear.

The slight touch by #25 is the one that put Jones back onside, but it was virtually impossible for any of the officials to see it in real time.

There can be no complaints. Move on.

That touch does not put him back onside, the ball was propelled forward from RVP, that is when Jones is offside.

I understand why people would think a touch takes the offside away but it simply doesn't in this situation.

 

[Gannicus]

That touch does not put him back onside, the ball was propelled forward from RVP, that is when Jones is offside.

I understand why people would think a touch takes the offside away but it simply doesn't in this situation.

Now I'm at a hotel in San Francisco and don't have access to the proper angle, as the YouTube video posted here isn't ideal.

But the same analysis applies here. When RvP played the ball Jones was indeed in an offside position, but at that moment Jones was not interfering with play. That has to be obvious to everyone.

The only point in time when Jones enters the play, so to speak, is after #25 plays the ball off his chest. Then Jones heads the ball, which crosses the line by a centimeter. The elements of the offside rule do indeed apply all the time, including this situation.

Ruud scored on a nearly identical play in 2002 or 2003 and there was extensive commentary in the British media explaining that the no offside call was actually the right call.

The only way the offside call would have been correct in this case is if Falcao was deemed to be interfering in the play. One can see how that conclusion could be reached, but we've also seen the forward in that exact situation be deemed to not have interfered countless times. Calling Jones offside just gets it all wrong, unless we conclude #25 never touched the ball...but he did.

Still, there can be no complaints with the offside decision in real time.

 

[Eric'sCollar]

@Gannicus When you slow it down, split the seconds and categorize every frame individually, then yes, I can see an argument for Jones being played onside but it can't be done like that. The moment RVP knocked it forward, Jones started moving in the direction of the ball putting himself in the play.

Can be discussed all day though I guess and it's why the offside rule, while in theory is black and white, it still such a grey area at times.

 

[nick2004]

On the other hand, if the goal counted then nobody would complain. It wouldn't be like we stole the match or anything. It was a 50-50 decision that went against us. And at that point we were dominating, so this call decided the game.

 

[Eric'sCollar]

We can't really complain about an offside goal after Mata's against the scousers

 

[nick2004]

OK, I'll give you that. Still... it wasn't!

 

[Eric'sCollar]

Still... it wasn't!

Agreed.

 

[nick2004]

I mean that the Spurs "offside" wasn't!

The Liverpool one depends on whether it touched RVP or not. But it is not very important since we won 3-0 anyway.

 

[sunama]

Against Villa we created feck all and ponced around the pitch like show ponys.

We are playing Stoke next.
The last thing we need to see are show ponies.
If any show ponies turn up, they'll probably leave the field on a stretcher.

The show ponies are great against top passing sides like Arsenal or Bayern.
But against Stoke, we need grit and determination.

 

[Striker10]

The show ponies at the back were out in force again

 

[bugmat]

Why do Spurs completely roll over for Chelsea and Arsenal twice a season yet they've played their best football against us in recent years. So fecking annoying..

Heh - well looks like they didn't play their best vs us at least!

 

[Trizy]

Heh - well looks like they didn't play their best vs us at least!

I missed the game, logged on when I got home and saw the 5-3 result, the first thing that came into my head was posting that comment

 

[SalfordRed1960]

I missed the game, logged on when I got home and saw the 5-3 result, the first thing that came into my head was posting that comment

The reality is a bit different though isnt it. Chelsea battered Spurs for the first 30 mins, bit like we did to Spurs. They then got undone by some sloppy play and could not recover.
Have to say, though Kane had a clear penalty, he did exaggerate the fall. My initial thought was he had cost them the penalty when he went down. Glad the ref didn't bottle it.
I was surprised at how easy Hazard and Fabregas hit the deck in the game. Slightest touch and they were rolling about. Thought Costa was lucky to stay on the pitch with his snide contact with the defenders.[/QUOTE]

 

[bugmat]

The reality is a bit different though isnt it. Chelsea battered Spurs for the first 30 mins, bit like we did to Spurs. They then got undone by some sloppy play and could not recover.
Have to say, though Kane had a clear penalty, he did exaggerate the fall. My initial thought was he had cost them the penalty when he went down. Glad the ref didn't bottle it.
I was surprised at how easy Hazard and Fabregas hit the deck in the game. Slightest touch and they were rolling about. Thought Costa was lucky to stay on the pitch with his snide contact with the defenders.

[/QUOTE]
Naw Spurs battered Chelsea the first 10 minutes and were out of the blocks like a cat on fire.. then got scored upon by Chelsea's very first proper attack. After tht Chelsea had a good 15 minutes or so then it was Spurs again and they duly scored three. Chelsea came back near the end but by that time Spurs were in the dressing room. Over the 90 minutes it was definitely Spurs who were better.