| Rotledge.serious question. 21:21 - Sep 16 with 6462 views | whoflungdung |
Why bring on this chap with five minutes to go when we re defending for our lives.
He almost cost us the game by doing what he does which is fook all
Something obviously wrong with Mesa
Another huge waste of money that ll be loaned back to Spain.
Can't fathom it out but maybe rots huge legions of fans can explain |  |
| |  |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 21:24 - Sep 16 with 2422 views | oldcob |
Absolutely 100% agree. Baffling. | | | |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 21:29 - Sep 16 with 2397 views | jack247 |
Allow me.
He didn't come on because we were desperate to have him on the pitch, though he did stretch the game a little bit, my heart was in my mouth when he got booked then gave away a stupid free kIck in a reasonably dangerous position.
He came on because it allowed us to drop the full backs further back and for Carroll and Clucas to play slightly deeper. It took one of our biggest and most physical defenders out of the box, but it also made it harder for Spurs to get crosses in or play their little give and gos in dangerous areas.
We did the same thing at Palace when Townsend was starting to control the game in the space between our back three and midfield. Routledge was almost a pawn in that move, it was more about team shape than the player himself. | | | |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 21:31 - Sep 16 with 2390 views | Swanjaxs |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 21:24 - Sep 16 by oldcob |
Absolutely 100% agree. Baffling. |
Closing the game down nicely... then for some reason you replace one third of a solid back three with the car crash that is Wayne Routledge.... I honestly thought the fourth official had fù ked the substitution up and the wrong player had come off ! |  |
| |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 21:35 - Sep 16 with 2364 views | Darran |
Well I think he's way past his SBD but tonight I really couldn't give a fuçk. |  |
| |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 21:48 - Sep 16 with 2319 views | jack247 |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 21:31 - Sep 16 by Swanjaxs |
Closing the game down nicely... then for some reason you replace one third of a solid back three with the car crash that is Wayne Routledge.... I honestly thought the fourth official had fù ked the substitution up and the wrong player had come off ! |
We could have brought Narsingh on, it would have been a similar move.
We did exactly the same at Palace and it worked. Not because it was Routledge, but because it allowed our other midfielders to sit closer to the defence. | | | |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 21:52 - Sep 16 with 2308 views | jasfan |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 21:29 - Sep 16 by jack247 |
Allow me.
He didn't come on because we were desperate to have him on the pitch, though he did stretch the game a little bit, my heart was in my mouth when he got booked then gave away a stupid free kIck in a reasonably dangerous position.
He came on because it allowed us to drop the full backs further back and for Carroll and Clucas to play slightly deeper. It took one of our biggest and most physical defenders out of the box, but it also made it harder for Spurs to get crosses in or play their little give and gos in dangerous areas.
We did the same thing at Palace when Townsend was starting to control the game in the space between our back three and midfield. Routledge was almost a pawn in that move, it was more about team shape than the player himself. |
I think you are right about that tactical change by the manager.
Maybe in the future when Nathan Dyer is fit he would be the preferred substitute in a similar match situation. | | | |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 21:55 - Sep 16 with 2297 views | jack247 |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 21:52 - Sep 16 by jasfan |
I think you are right about that tactical change by the manager.
Maybe in the future when Nathan Dyer is fit he would be the preferred substitute in a similar match situation. |
Quite possibly | | | |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 22:13 - Sep 16 with 2237 views | TheResurrection |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 21:29 - Sep 16 by jack247 |
Allow me.
He didn't come on because we were desperate to have him on the pitch, though he did stretch the game a little bit, my heart was in my mouth when he got booked then gave away a stupid free kIck in a reasonably dangerous position.
He came on because it allowed us to drop the full backs further back and for Carroll and Clucas to play slightly deeper. It took one of our biggest and most physical defenders out of the box, but it also made it harder for Spurs to get crosses in or play their little give and gos in dangerous areas.
We did the same thing at Palace when Townsend was starting to control the game in the space between our back three and midfield. Routledge was almost a pawn in that move, it was more about team shape than the player himself. |
Haha
Good grief no.
OK allow me... Carroll and Clucas couldn't get any deeper, neither could our full backs.
Also we were containing them hand over feet in the air. In fact, did they win a single header in the box?
We needed an outlet and a pacey one to get up the field quick and to stop their full back advancing. For all our defending in the second half I reckon Routs had just as many touches in their half as he did our own.
Defending isn't just about the plain obvious every Tom, Dick or Harry can work out, it's about all the intricate components that build up an attacking move. They were trying to launch attacks from deeper with Wardrobe on the pitch. Routs would've been able to defend further up the pitch.
Tim, if you want to run your next post past me first I'll be happy to cross reference and vet it before it goes public.
Always happy to help here.... |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Rotledge.serious question. on 22:31 - Sep 16 with 2207 views | jack247 |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 22:13 - Sep 16 by TheResurrection |
Haha
Good grief no.
OK allow me... Carroll and Clucas couldn't get any deeper, neither could our full backs.
Also we were containing them hand over feet in the air. In fact, did they win a single header in the box?
We needed an outlet and a pacey one to get up the field quick and to stop their full back advancing. For all our defending in the second half I reckon Routs had just as many touches in their half as he did our own.
Defending isn't just about the plain obvious every Tom, Dick or Harry can work out, it's about all the intricate components that build up an attacking move. They were trying to launch attacks from deeper with Wardrobe on the pitch. Routs would've been able to defend further up the pitch.
Tim, if you want to run your next post past me first I'll be happy to cross reference and vet it before it goes public.
Always happy to help here.... |
Oh for gods sake.
As soon as he came on we went to a flat back four and he became our outlet from defence rather than the fullbacks, who dropped right back and didn't look to go forward at all. You didn't think Clucas and Carroll dropped deeper either? Send me a PM if you want help getting a decent Kodi stream.
Containing them hand over feet in the air, so we take off our biggest centre back? It was clearly to stop crosses getting into the box and them playing in the gap between defence and midfield.
Obviously he could defend from higher up the pitch than VdH, which holds their fullback up (and also makes Naughton harder to attack) I didn't think it was necessary to explain that, thanks though.
Mate, thanks for the offer of advice but I'll pass until you say something a bit more incisive. | | | |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 00:24 - Sep 17 with 2119 views | TheResurrection |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 22:31 - Sep 16 by jack247 |
Oh for gods sake.
As soon as he came on we went to a flat back four and he became our outlet from defence rather than the fullbacks, who dropped right back and didn't look to go forward at all. You didn't think Clucas and Carroll dropped deeper either? Send me a PM if you want help getting a decent Kodi stream.
Containing them hand over feet in the air, so we take off our biggest centre back? It was clearly to stop crosses getting into the box and them playing in the gap between defence and midfield.
Obviously he could defend from higher up the pitch than VdH, which holds their fullback up (and also makes Naughton harder to attack) I didn't think it was necessary to explain that, thanks though.
Mate, thanks for the offer of advice but I'll pass until you say something a bit more incisive. |
Fair play, you've managed a pretty spectacular attempt at rehashing what I just said and as for your "Clucas, Carroll, our two wing backs dropping deeper" that's a painful attempt at analysis. They were as deep the whole half.
I've told you before.... Think before you post. | |
| |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 00:37 - Sep 17 with 2090 views | jack247 |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 00:24 - Sep 17 by TheResurrection |
Fair play, you've managed a pretty spectacular attempt at rehashing what I just said and as for your "Clucas, Carroll, our two wing backs dropping deeper" that's a painful attempt at analysis. They were as deep the whole half.
I've told you before.... Think before you post. |
Aside from the achingly obvious part about Routledge being able to defend higher up the pitch, it's exactly what I said in the first place. You know, the bit you vehemently disagreed with.
You understand the difference between deep and deeper surely. They were defending deep, then Routledge came on, which allowed them to defend deeper. We went from 352 to a flat back four.
Your bluster may impress some on here. You're not intelligent enough to patronise though. | | | |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 00:47 - Sep 17 with 2075 views | TheResurrection |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 00:37 - Sep 17 by jack247 |
Aside from the achingly obvious part about Routledge being able to defend higher up the pitch, it's exactly what I said in the first place. You know, the bit you vehemently disagreed with.
You understand the difference between deep and deeper surely. They were defending deep, then Routledge came on, which allowed them to defend deeper. We went from 352 to a flat back four.
Your bluster may impress some on here. You're not intelligent enough to patronise though. |
We went from a 5 3 2 to a 4 5 1 FFS. That's a massive diffidence.
3 at the back FFS?? Haha haha come on we got entrenched.
To everyone else, does ANYONE else think we went even deeper when Routs came on? It's facking laughable mun.
And VdH did well but he wasn't the one winning headers, that was Fede mostly. | |
| |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 01:18 - Sep 17 with 2047 views | jack247 |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 00:47 - Sep 17 by TheResurrection |
We went from a 5 3 2 to a 4 5 1 FFS. That's a massive diffidence.
3 at the back FFS?? Haha haha come on we got entrenched.
To everyone else, does ANYONE else think we went even deeper when Routs came on? It's facking laughable mun.
And VdH did well but he wasn't the one winning headers, that was Fede mostly. |
Fernandez was the standout defender and won most of the headers. Irrelevant, but I completely agree. He had a great game.
I said the fullbacks, Carroll and Clucas played deeper when Routledge came on, not the entire team. There was no onus on them to carry or play the ball out of defence. It's not as if we played with a flat back 5 all game. | | | |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 07:29 - Sep 17 with 1942 views | STID2017 |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 21:35 - Sep 16 by Darran |
Well I think he's way past his SBD but tonight I really couldn't give a fuçk. |
I agree - succinctly put as always Darran !
Best performance at Wembley since Adele ....  |  |
| |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 10:09 - Sep 17 with 1819 views | TheResurrection |
How many more times have I got to tell you. Think before you post.
That's a map of the whole game, not the last 3 minutes.
And pretty much from 55 minutes on we were entrenched on our back line. We did get out now and again and of course with 5 at the back the full backs are a tad in front of the back 3, but make no bones about it, we were a back 5 for the majority of the game, ESPECIALLY the ten minutes before Routs came on. | |
| |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 10:26 - Sep 17 with 1789 views | jack247 |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 10:09 - Sep 17 by TheResurrection |
How many more times have I got to tell you. Think before you post.
That's a map of the whole game, not the last 3 minutes.
And pretty much from 55 minutes on we were entrenched on our back line. We did get out now and again and of course with 5 at the back the full backs are a tad in front of the back 3, but make no bones about it, we were a back 5 for the majority of the game, ESPECIALLY the ten minutes before Routs came on. |
That's the entire point. It's a map of the whole game, they were much deeper than that after Routledge came on. Take that period out and they would be further forward agan. His arrival enabled them to do that without getting completely boxed in, as he offered the outlet that they had previously had to provide when we had 3 centre backs.
'A tad in front of the back 3' - their average positions were further forward than Sanches and he missed a good chunk of the last 55 minutes when we were 'entrenched'.
I used to think you were a knowledgeable football poster. I'm beginning to realise there's a fair bit of the emperors new clothes going on here. | | | |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 10:39 - Sep 17 with 1775 views | whoflungdung |
Fact
Rot ledge nearly undid all the good
How',by being unable to tackle and fouling,giving Eriksen a game changing chance.
Thst he didn't take it doesn't excuse the utter folly of having this jerk on the field of play.
It's pretty insulting to all previous great players we ve had at our club.
Please please someone take him from us in January | |
| |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 10:44 - Sep 17 with 1766 views | jack247 |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 10:39 - Sep 17 by whoflungdung |
Fact
Rot ledge nearly undid all the good
How',by being unable to tackle and fouling,giving Eriksen a game changing chance.
Thst he didn't take it doesn't excuse the utter folly of having this jerk on the field of play.
It's pretty insulting to all previous great players we ve had at our club.
Please please someone take him from us in January |
He gave a away a stupid free kick. Absolutely. There was almost a case for a second yellow for that challenge too, though it would have been harsh. Overall, he did what Clement wanted him to do.
You're going to have to accept that he is going to be on the bench most weeks and will sometimes get 10-15 minutes until we can bring someone better in. | | | |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 10:50 - Sep 17 with 1746 views | Darran |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 10:44 - Sep 17 by jack247 |
He gave a away a stupid free kick. Absolutely. There was almost a case for a second yellow for that challenge too, though it would have been harsh. Overall, he did what Clement wanted him to do.
You're going to have to accept that he is going to be on the bench most weeks and will sometimes get 10-15 minutes until we can bring someone better in. |
Tim I don't know how closely you've followed Scouces posts over the last decade but he does this every year. He takes a player of manager and keeps on and on and on and on about them.
For a 70 year old man he's pretty pathetic. | |
| |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 11:19 - Sep 17 with 1727 views | monmouth |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 10:50 - Sep 17 by Darran |
Tim I don't know how closely you've followed Scouces posts over the last decade but he does this every year. He takes a player of manager and keeps on and on and on and on about them.
For a 70 year old man he's pretty pathetic. |
It'd be great if we appointed Jeremy Corbyn as manager mind. |  |
| |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 11:25 - Sep 17 with 1705 views | Darran |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 11:19 - Sep 17 by monmouth |
It'd be great if we appointed Jeremy Corbyn as manager mind. |
Oh fuçking hell.  | |
| |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 12:01 - Sep 17 with 1676 views | TheResurrection |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 10:26 - Sep 17 by jack247 |
That's the entire point. It's a map of the whole game, they were much deeper than that after Routledge came on. Take that period out and they would be further forward agan. His arrival enabled them to do that without getting completely boxed in, as he offered the outlet that they had previously had to provide when we had 3 centre backs.
'A tad in front of the back 3' - their average positions were further forward than Sanches and he missed a good chunk of the last 55 minutes when we were 'entrenched'.
I used to think you were a knowledgeable football poster. I'm beginning to realise there's a fair bit of the emperors new clothes going on here. |
Mate you've embarrassed yourself here and you need to watch the game back.
You can't blag the game of football, you need to watch it and understand it. Without the ball and under pressure we were a back 5. And we were under a lot of pressure second half ESPECIALLY before Routs came on.
Let me reiterate for the slow thinking. Our wing backs and Clucas couldn't go much deeper, we were all hands on pumps. Bringing Routs on DIDN'T allow then to go deeper even MORE!!!
It was designed to give us an outlet and stop the longer diagonals coming across.
Routs had as many touches in their half, so we pushed them back to a degree with the threat of his pace.
It was a bold move, not anobvious one. We could easily have stayed with the back 5 as we were holding them off well even then. It would not have been in Clements design for Routs to give a free kick away with the ball to be launched into a defence without one of our big guys, but I can see why hedid it.
Stop blagging, more thinking. Listen and learn. | |
| |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 12:17 - Sep 17 with 1655 views | monmouth |
I can't remember too much about the game as I was pretty much ratted before kick off, but I do remember thinking when Spurs had the ball - so pretty much all the time - that we couldn't get any deeper, with what looked like 6 men and Fabs in our box much of the time.
I'm surprised at that heat map. I can only think that when we hoofed it out we pushed forward before retreating again when Spurs got near 25 yards out.
I do know, even drunk, that is not what I want to watch too many times. I'll happily applaud it now, as a point up there is fantastic, and still makes me feel good and thrilled. If we'd lost it one nil though, I would be fuming at us playing like a lower league team in a cup tie, whatever the arguments for it, which I understand fully. If we play like that at West Ham, I will be pretty much disgusted. It is worse than Monkball, which also got short term results by riding luck. | |
| |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 12:22 - Sep 17 with 1645 views | jack247 |
| Rotledge.serious question. on 12:01 - Sep 17 by TheResurrection |
Mate you've embarrassed yourself here and you need to watch the game back.
You can't blag the game of football, you need to watch it and understand it. Without the ball and under pressure we were a back 5. And we were under a lot of pressure second half ESPECIALLY before Routs came on.
Let me reiterate for the slow thinking. Our wing backs and Clucas couldn't go much deeper, we were all hands on pumps. Bringing Routs on DIDN'T allow then to go deeper even MORE!!!
It was designed to give us an outlet and stop the longer diagonals coming across.
Routs had as many touches in their half, so we pushed them back to a degree with the threat of his pace.
It was a bold move, not anobvious one. We could easily have stayed with the back 5 as we were holding them off well even then. It would not have been in Clements design for Routs to give a free kick away with the ball to be launched into a defence without one of our big guys, but I can see why hedid it.
Stop blagging, more thinking. Listen and learn. |
Give it up mate, honestly. It was exactly the same substitution we made at Palace to good effect. It wasn't obvious then, I wasn't surprised or concerned when he did it again yesterday.
You are not actually saying much different to my original post (which mentioned him stretching the game) other than you don't agree it allowed our fullbacks and central midfielders to defend deeper without the added pressure of bringing the ball out. In all honesty, that's bollocks and will remain bollocks whether you use capital letters or not.
I don't think you are accounting for the fact they had to bring the ball out of defence when we turned over possession before Routledge came on. Either that or you're just arguing for the sake of it. I've given you a map that shows the average position of our fullbacks was a lot more than a 'tad' further forward than Mawson and Fernandez in particular. That Carroll and Clucas' average position wasn't far behind Tammys. There's not much more I can do. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
