Jose's tactics blamed for another draw. | Vital Football

Jose's tactics blamed for another draw.

Spursex

Alert Team
Jose Mourinho points to player errors but his Tottenham tactics are costly
In association with
By
Dan Kilpatrick
@Dan_KP
1 hour ago





Jose Mourinho took aim at his centre-backs after last night's draw with Fulham, suggesting their "individual ability" cost Tottenham the three points.

The Cottagers scored a deserved equaliser with 15 minutes to play when Ademola Lookman burst away from Davinson Sanchez and Ivan Cavaleiro rose above Eric Dier to head home.

"There are some things that have to do with the organisation of the team but other things they have to do with individual skills, individual ability," Mourinho said, when asked about his defenders' lapses. "It's as simple as that."

His implication was clear: Fulham's equaliser had nothing to do with Tottenham's set-up and everything to do with the quality of Sanchez and Dier.

The stalemate, which made it one win in six League matches for Mourinho, will only add to the manager's long-held belief that Spurs are being undone by individual mistakes.

In defence of this argument, Cavaleiro's goal, which cancelled out Harry Kane's header, was only the fourth time Spurs have conceded from open play in this season's Premier League and, in a separate interview with broadcasters, Mourinho was more direct about his side's common failings.

"Once more we concede a goal that is completely avoidable," he said. "Again, we lose a man in the box, which is something that happens the majority of the time in set-pieces. This time it was in free play."

Mourinho was desperate for a new centre-half in the summer and pushed chairman Daniel Levy to sign Milan Skriniar from Inter Milan. The Slovakian was ultimately out of reach and Spurs instead turned to the more affordable Joe Rodon.

In Rodon's only Premier League start to date, he made two errors leading to chances in the 0-0 draw at Chelsea and Mourinho has since stuck with the experience of Toby Alderweireld and Dier, with Sanchez occasionally coming in against quicker attacks.
Alderweireld and Dier are a steady pair, who have helped Spurs' establish the second-best defence in the top flight, but they are certainly no Terry and Carvalho, Ramos and Varane.

Mourinho's preferred approach is based on the belief that one goal should always be enough to win any game, but it is clear he cannot rely on his current crop to execute a philosophy built on such fine margins, which begs the question of why his side continue to sit back after taking the lead.


Last night's derby, which had assumed the proportions of a grudge match given forthright claims from Mourinho and Fulham boss Scott Parker over the rescheduling of the fixture, followed the same pattern as Tottenham's frustrating 1-1 draws at Crystal Palace and Wolves last month.

Mourinho's Spurs remain a work in a progress, but there is little chance of signing a top defender this month, with the club more focused on outgoings.

Until the summer, or until he has more confidence in his current crop of defenders, Mourinho's reluctance to release the shackles and play a more progressive game on the front foot will surely continue to cost Tottenham.

Pragmatism in this context does not necessarily mean safe football; it means doing whatever is necessary to win — and putting the onus on Harry Kane, Heung-min Son and a varied support cast for goals feels a safer bet than continuing to rely on Dier, Sanchez & Co. to keep clean sheets.

In fairness to Mourinho, Spurs had more than enough chances to win but were wasteful in the final third, further highlighting another of their familiar failings: an over-reliance on Kane and Son for goals.
Kane's broke the deadlock with a textbook flying header from Sergio Reguilon's superb cross but Son had an off-day, striking the post moments before Cavaleiro's equaliser.

A well-drilled Fulham side, who displayed no ill-effects from the outbreak of coronavirus which had decimated Parker's squad, looked the more likely winners, with Hugo Lloris saving from the excellent Ruben Loftus-Cheek after Spurs' defence was opened up again.
 
There is a propensity in the media to follow the narrative. The antiJose mentality is the popular move, especially now he at Spurs.
 
I was doubtful about the tactics but we had enough chances to win easily. We defended pretty well which explains why Hugo had little to do apart from punt the ball upfield and lose possession.
The team selection was almost right but Winks probably wrong. Ndombele stayed on too long.
I think Parker is lucky we didnt score more goals despite Jose's errors.
 
I was doubtful about the tactics but we had enough chances to win easily. We defended pretty well which explains why Hugo had little to do apart from punt the ball upfield and lose possession.
The team selection was almost right but Winks probably wrong. Ndombele stayed on too long.
I think Parker is lucky we didnt score more goals despite Jose's errors.
Again, I think you're undervaluing Fulham's opportunities.

RLC had a volley from inside the penalty area in the first half that was centimeters past the post. And Lloris was beaten.

At 1-1 the same player got in behind our defence for a one-on-one with Lloris which he did really well to save. But if RLC had lifted the ball six inches it was goal.

One of Fulham's players got on the end of a long ball behind Reggie and smashed it into the side netting. He had a teammate free in the penalty area to pass to.

Lookman had a couple of good openings in our area but couldn't find the killer pass. In fact, given the problems he caused us, it's just as well he wasn't on from the beginning.

After it went to 1-1 Fulham looked just as likely to score as we did.
 
Again, I think you're undervaluing Fulham's opportunities.

RLC had a volley from inside the penalty area in the first half that was centimeters past the post. And Lloris was beaten.

At 1-1 the same player got in behind our defence for a one-on-one with Lloris which he did really well to save. But if RLC had lifted the ball six inches it was goal.

One of Fulham's players got on the end of a long ball behind Reggie and smashed it into the side netting. He had a teammate free in the penalty area to pass to.

Lookman had a couple of good openings in our area but couldn't find the killer pass. In fact, given the problems he caused us, it's just as well he wasn't on from the beginning.

After it went to 1-1 Fulham looked just as likely to score as we did.

I was meaning shots and attempts on target that needed good saves. Lloris saved with his legs very late on it is true, but we should have been out of sight by then. We did score in answer to their equaliser but Son was offside. It was a good build up and deserved a goal.
 
No it doesn't but it does balance the fault. Son's miss was criminal.
I saw somewhere a stat showing that he is by far the most clinical striker in Europe. So him missing a sitter isnt a big thing. If he would have 3-5 big chances a game and miss we could disgust. Every football player has missed big chances in his life. Its something that happens. Pep for example believes in creating as many chances as possible hoping that one will fall in. I prefer that approach to a game.
 
And why did he not bring on Dele or Bale. Pretty sure he doesnt want to give them the light to shine. He must hate Dele and Bale. Hope he wont get his defender as he will carry on with playing 4 CM while leaving the creative players out.
 
There is a propensity in the media to follow the narrative. The antiJose mentality is the popular move, especially now he at Spurs.

I'm not sure where you are getting that from; Jose has them eating them out of his hand - he's great box office, this is the first article that is pointing the finger directly at his dreadful tactics.
 
I saw somewhere a stat showing that he is by far the most clinical striker in Europe. So him missing a sitter isnt a big thing. If he would have 3-5 big chances a game and miss we could disgust. Every football player has missed big chances in his life. Its something that happens. Pep for example believes in creating as many chances as possible hoping that one will fall in. I prefer that approach to a game.


Sonny had at least 4.
 
Sonny had at least 4.
well I would say 2, the header was difficult, goali was able to close the corner. heading it to the 2nd post is very difficult and Son is not known for his heading abilities. but yes he did miss good chances, the post for example.
Still not down to him losing this game. There were options on the bench which werent used. We could have created 10+ big chances more against this oponent.
 
If we are in a situation where Sonny can never miss a chance without it costing us the match, our situation is really dire. His conversion rate is already the highest in the Premiership. Our tactical approach and style of play is such that one miss by a primary striker, or one error by a central defender or GK, will result in our losing or not winning a game. That's not the way it should be. I don't think that there is any doubt that albeit we don't have the best squad in the Premiership, we do have players of sufficient quality as to be out of sight against the likes of Fulham, Wolves and Palace if we maintained an attacking intent against them throughout.
 
The bottom line is simple, and no excuses will hide it, we have a negative coach who's created a negative backbone who now seems utterly afraid to set us up to win - when he did, we won and mostly won well.

So the questions that remain are why, and why doesn't he learn from these results, what's gone wrong with his 'winning' genius?

Our results are a direct result of his set up and game management.
 
Son chance saved by keepers legs could probably have gone anywhere, I think Son had limited options other than what he did.
Son header the pundits suggested if he had headed it down he would have scored but I'm not sure he could have got over it.
Son shot that hit the post, keeper beaten but Son scuffed it so not a clean execution.
Son offside for our winning goal that was nicely engineered.
Winks shot saved.
Sissoko run thwarted last ditch tackle.
Hojbjerg shot too weak.
Chance creation was not the problem, therefore tactics worked.
At what stage does a manager decide to defend a 1 goal lead. Jose subbed Ndombele for Lamela on 75 minutes before Fulham scored. That's an attacking sub. A defensive one would have been Davies or Toby.
Jose knew Fulham had to come at us as they were losing and we damn well nearly exploited that.
I do not accept that one game spells doom and writes off Jose. Despite his errors in the game we still should and could have won easily.
 
Son chance saved by keepers legs could probably have gone anywhere, I think Son had limited options other than what he did.
Son header the pundits suggested if he had headed it down he would have scored but I'm not sure he could have got over it.
Son shot that hit the post, keeper beaten but Son scuffed it so not a clean execution.
Son offside for our winning goal that was nicely engineered.
Winks shot saved.
Sissoko run thwarted last ditch tackle.
Hojbjerg shot too weak.
Chance creation was not the problem, therefore tactics worked.
At what stage does a manager decide to defend a 1 goal lead. Jose subbed Ndombele for Lamela on 75 minutes before Fulham scored. That's an attacking sub. A defensive one would have been Davies or Toby.
Jose knew Fulham had to come at us as they were losing and we damn well nearly exploited that.
I do not accept that one game spells doom and writes off Jose. Despite his errors in the game we still should and could have won easily.


Agreed. But we haven't solidified our defence to the point where we can sit on a one goal lead. Statistically it says we can, mentally................