Playing like they have done tonight they have managed to destroy a team we have failed to get to grips with this season.

I worry that our midfield will simply not get the ball and we may suffer another London misery.

Clarence would worry me in this situation

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Answers

and talking of cover at wing backs/full backs

Spurs have Ziegge and Stephen Carr both out injured

Yet have mudered Chelsea on each flank

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Yet Wham have beaten spurs already this season but got spanked last week by chelsea. Doesn't mean a thing, spurs have lost to some really poor teams recently and this was their only chance of uefa next year. I think it was more a case of chewsee being terrible than spurs being fantastic, we have proved it ourselves this season that we can make anyone look good. Remember that spurs hadn't beaten chelsea for something like four years, complacency all over the place.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Strangle enough, it could work out that Spurs winning this one could hamper their chances of a UEFA spot. If Blackburn win then they get the UEFA spot. If Chelsea had got through and won, then the spot would go to the team highest in the league without a UEFA place.

Perhaps unlikely, but it is still possible.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

IMHO, Chewsee beat themselves tonight. They were rank. It would appear that they are inconsistent as we are. They were asleep for even longer than we were against Leeds, allowing the first to be scored in the 2nd minute. Petit was cr@p and was lucky to be left on the pitch as long as he was. Dessailly played the worst I have ever seen him play. JFH did nowt (including when he was sent off). Stanic was worse than useless. OK, so they were without LeSox and Zenden (boooooo!) went off injured early on after a challenge by Sheri. However, IMHO, BZ (boooooo!) was as much to blame for the tackle than Sheri. Oh yes, and the 5th was down to an assist by Mark Halsey, who had as bad a game tonight as he had a good one at the weekend.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Spurs were truly outstanding tonight - Anderton, and to a lesser extent, Sheringham and Sherwood, controlled the game. Anderton's control and passing were just brilliant.

Watching this tremendous performance, the thing that troubled me thinking about our own visit to WHL next week was our likely tactical approach.

Tonight, Chelsea's 4-4-2 just couldn't cope tactically with Spurs playing one up front and essentially 6 in m/f midfield. This raises the question of just what will we do to counter the same approach? Ron Atkinson was imploring Ranieri to change things to match Spurs man-for-man, and they sort of did eventually, but looked very uncomfortable making the changes, and were 2 down before they got going.

BR got massacred for playing 3-5-2 against Spurs at SJP, including from me. However, this was because our players didn't appear to have a clue what role they were supposed to be playng in this formation, and we didn't have the players on the field to effectively play WB - ie Solano & Robert.

So, what the hell should we do? If we go down there and play 4-4-2, we could get the same treatment Chelsea got tonight by a team full of experienced and tactically aware players.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

The thing is though, Chelsea gifted them an early goal. It wasn't a goal like Smith's where the chance still had to be taken, it was an absolute gift.

Spurs played well from that point, but a goal makes a hell of a difference.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Clarky - I too criticised YBR for playing 3-5-2, but on reflection (I may also have said so at the time) it was his choice of players as much as the formation which screwed us.

It was Distin's first game. Not what you want to do when introducing a new CB to the defence. Also, Robert has less clue than me about covering back. If he's gonna play 3-5-2 next week (and he may well) we should have Bernard on the left, and possibly Hughes as RWB. He's done quite well going forward and is better defending than Nobby.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Screaacher, this then poses the problem of the central three. Creative flair in Robert, Dyer & Nobby or Cautious with two of these and Acuna, or someone else into the equation. Spurs have good strong midfielders who aren't afraid to tackle. We've either got to run rings around them and hope they don't catch us on the break or we have to fight it out in m/f. We also have to break Simon Davies legs.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

The Spurs game at SJP was a shambles - playing 3-5-2 was only part of it. Imo, the big problem was that the players didn't appear to have a clue what their roles were supposed to be - fatal. The secondary problem was playing Solano, and particularly Robert, at WB.

We could go to WHL and play our usual 4-4-2, and simply go for their throat from the off. It might work.

My instinct is that we must have a game plan for coping when they have the ball. This is not imo being negative, or giving them more respect than they deserve. They play a different formation to most PL teams, and have players who can dominate games - given licence. That is the tactical issue - denying them the opportunity.

We have to be able to cope with the blindingly simple ploy of Sheringham dropping deep and leaving Les up front on his own. If we're playing 4-4-2 someone in our back four needs to track him, or he will torment us. In effect this means going to a back 3 to counter this, even if transiently.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Andy, I'm not saying I would do it, nor which personnel I would use (well, not until after the TeamPick deadline!). Seriously, I'm wish Clarky on this one. It was a combination of the 2 WBs and the inexperience of Distin with either of the other 2 CBs that was the major problem. The 3 CBs have now played enough with one or other so their communication and understanding should be a lot better than it was at home. But 3-5-2 isn't a formation you can switch to without having practiced it in the past. I wonder what we'll do on Saturday - hang on, Dabs is suspended so that rules that out as a practice.

No, I think we have to adapt to the circumstances. Clarky suggested we might have a man-marker on Sheri. That would probably be Hughes if we did it. I wouldn't trust Ditin with that job as he gives his man too much space and Sheri would make mincemeat of him under those circs.

Mind, it's not only Sir Les (remember he wasn't playing tonight). They have Iverson and Rebrov who play up there as well. We also have Poyet to worry about :-( After that depressing thought, I'm off to bed.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

This Spurs game could be a brahma. They're at home, but have many more scoring options than say Leicester did, and on that basis they might want to try to give us the same treatment as they did Chelsea, but, admittedly a big but, could leave some openings that will let in Bellamy and/or Dyer.

And, noticing my hobby horse champing at the bit, Bobby mustn't try to hedge his bets. Must admit but, that's me whistling in the dark again. Have to hope Sheringham's age catches up morning of the match. Spors looked bliddy good.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2002

Pah! What's going on?! Don't be scared of Spurs FFS!!!!! yeah they played well last night but that is not their usual level of performance.

Remember they have to play us as well! If we fire on all cylinders - we're a match for any team and Spurs don't do it consistently.

Your expressions of nervousness at playing the 'mighty' spurs worry me - if some of us are concerned about what they say in this game, I hope to god it doesn't send BR into some tactical dream world. I suspect it will now.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

Yep Spurs were outstanding the one touch rocket like passing was fantastic to watch, However Chewsea were not their usuall selves and let themselves get bossed in midfield.

Hasselbaink was unjustly sent off for a head push by melchiot so they had lost there best player , Petit has not looked a good player since he left Arsenal.

So all in all yep they just clicked that day but if we pressure them we should beat them .

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

Chelsea were abling around lackadaisically in midfield, giving them acres of space. I agree we need to think hard about what to do when they have possession, but at the very least closing them down a bit more quickly would be more than Chelsea offered.

If we do manage to maintain a bit of possession (which we have been able to do this season), the objective has got to be to give them more to worry about than us worrying about them. What are their weaknesses? Very inexperienced at the back. Ageing in midfield. If we get them chasing the ball around a bit, and their backs worrying about Shearer's physicality and pace coming at them from all directions, they mightn't look so canny. CONFIDENCE. Play to our strengths, not give in to theirs.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

That's the point KB - Chelsea, who are not too bad a 4-4-2 side - did allow themselves to be bossed in m/f. That's precisely what I'm hoping we set out to avoid.

If it's sacreligious (sp?) to "worry" about Spurs, then that's just the way it is I'm afraid. We can play an attacking game that suits our players AND have a game plan to cope with Spurs when they have the ball - these are not mutually exclusive.

I wasn't suggesting Hughes man-mark Sheringham, Screacher - certainly not from RB. That would simply leave acres of space for Tarrico to exploit on our right. IMO, one of the back four, probably O'Brien needs to be assigned to push out with him if/when he drops deep. That then requires Elliott or Hughes to tuck infield temporarily to support the other CB and one of the wingers to fill the gap left by the FB. Clearly, this requires tactical discipline that only comes through practice on the training pitch - however, if we don't have some game plan for this we WILL inevitably be left with four defenders marking Les and being seriously outnumbered in m/f.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

I think we'd approach the game in a better frame of mind if we assume that Spurs got it together, rather than assuming Chelsea had an off night.

As Clarky says, we need to plan to take the edge off their attacking options. If we let them boss the midfield like they did last night, we'll make the job much more difficult.

I think, though, that whatever plan Bobby comes up with will have to include taking some chances, because if we try too hard to cover our asses, Bellamy, Dyer and Robert won't play to their full potential, and we definitely need them firing on all cylinders.

It's the great Mag unknown that concerns me. We all know they can beat Spurs, but will Wednesday be another Manure type game ? And this isn't something that we should ignore. I think it's a legitimate concern, just as important as figuring out how we'd cope with another massive injury list.

The very fact that we've beaten Arse, and Leeds twice, among others, should generate sky high confidence, but can any of you, hand on heart, say you really expect another Arse or Leeds type performance ? The answer probably is 'Yes, but...', and that's how I feel.

We need whatever it was that got us through the Arse and two Leeds games, and not what it was that lost us three points at OT and two at Filbert St. And for me, that's the problem in a nut shell. I haven't the faintest idea what the difference was that got us 9 points in those 3 games, and only 1 from the other 2.

The only thing I can put it down to is the mental approach, nowt to do with technique or game plans. The commitment seems to go awol, and it's that that frustrates me more than anything else, because it's mostly the same set of players, leaving us, or me anyway, scratching my head in bewilderment cos there's no hint of the reason why.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

Once again, PB explains it all.

If the team can run so hot and cold with consistent inconsistency is it any wonder supporters can be sky-high with confidence one day and thnking of jumping off the Tyne bridge the next? Or somewhere in between for most people (I hope!), who just sit back bemused and know it's just life as a Toon supporter. It's certainly not boring! :-)

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

Ciara, the Tyne Bridge is old hat these days. If you wanna make a big splash, try the Blinking Eye.............especially when it's open.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

But the walkway isn't high enough for maximum impact. I'm a retro kinda gal. ;-)

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

Well, in that case Ciara, you should consider the High Level Bridge.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

I saw Spurs play Blackburn on New Year's day and they were decidedly average. Their old guard all faded in the last 30 minutes as they became tired. All we have to do is hold them for an hour then steamroller the buggers towards the end of the second half. Easy.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

Exactly Dave. If we get some possession and they have to scurry around themselves after the ball, and trying to cover the runs of Dyer, Bellamy etc., they'll be sh@gged out midway through the 2nd half. As you say. Easy ;-)

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002

Thanks lads, you've cheered me up no end. :-{E}

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2002