[Albion] Brighton & Hove Albion vs Tottenham Hotspur *** Official Match Thread ***

[Happy Exile]

Guilty. I'd have settled for 0-2 referee stopped fight at half time. Very happy to be proved wrong.

As I made my way to the concourse at half time in a the middle of a sea of chuntering mostly miserable fans a young guy behind me said "cheer up, we'll get three goals 2nd half and win". I wish I'd seen who it was so I could have asked him for the lottery numbers after the game!

 

[tronnogull]

 

[American Seagle]

They could have scored in the first minute because of our high line though, and we look extremely vulnerable because of it. We can't just ignore the frailty on the basis that Spurs fluffed the chance.

This argument holds less water the more games we don't conceed a goal due to it. None vs Chelsea and non vs Spurs. This starts to suggest it's working.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

This argument holds less water the more games we don't conceed a goal due to it. None vs Chelsea and non vs Spurs. This starts to suggest it's working.

This is simply not true.

 

[Machiavelli]

As I made my way to the concourse at half time in a the middle of a sea of chuntering mostly miserable fans a young guy behind me said "cheer up, we'll get three goals 2nd half and win". I wish I'd seen who it was so I could have asked him for the lottery numbers after the game!

Well, my boy makes the pair of us predict the outcome and the scorers. I went for three-all, with Minteh, Mitoma and Welbeck. You can guess what he went for. He's very good at it, and it leaves me in a bit of a dilemma: I don't want to encourage him to take up gambling; but ...

 

[nickbrighton]

I don't generally enjoy fans' videos...but that was great for some reason

This really shows the lie that the Amex doesnt make a noise and fans cant be heard anywhere-given that was recorded right in the middle of the spurs fans, you couldnt hear the the guy talking second half because the noise of the Brighton fans was drowning them out

 

[Triggaaar]

This argument holds less water the more games we don't conceed a goal due to it. None vs Chelsea and non vs Spurs. This starts to suggest it's working.

I'm happy if we can get it working, but I don't think we can use a game where we shipped 4 goals in the first half as evidence that it's working. Chelsea didn't need to score any more goals and were happy to stop us scoring, so they didn't need to beat our offside trap. We've let in more goals than anyone else in the top half, as many as relegation poised Palace.

 

[American Seagle]

This is simply not true.

Two goals were from missplaced passes (Webster and Verbruggen), one was a penalty and the last was an error from Estupinan leading to a free kick. All had nothing to do with the high line.

 

[Pliny the Gull]

Listening to Monday night club. 20 minutes of Spurs crisis so far being discussed. Who were they playing yesterday?

 

[American Seagle]

I'm happy if we can get it working, but I don't think we can use a game where we shipped 4 goals in the first half as evidence that it's working. Chelsea didn't need to score any more goals and were happy to stop us scoring, so they didn't need to beat our offside trap. We've let in more goals than anyone else in the top half, as many as relegation poised Palace.

We have been defensively poor at times, but mostly the goals have come from giving the ball away not from balls over the top from a high line.

 

[Triggaaar]

This argument holds less water the more games we don't conceed a goal due to it. None vs Chelsea and non vs Spurs. This starts to suggest it's working.

We have been defensively poor at times, but mostly the goals have come from giving the ball away not from balls over the top from a high line.

I'm just going to add that the second goal we conceded against Spurs was because of our high line. We were on the half way line, Solanke got the ball, passed it through our centre backs, Werner ran into the area with it (while our defenders were all running towards our own goal), and laid it off to Maddison who scored.

Obviously Verbruggen should have done better, but the chance was because of our high line.

 

[American Seagle]

I'm just going to add that the second goal we conceded against Spurs was because of our high line. We were on the half way line, Solanke got the ball, passed it through our centre backs, Werner ran into the area with it (while our defenders were all running towards our own goal), and laid it off to Maddison who scored.

Obviously Verbruggen should have done better, but the chance was because of our high line.

It wasn't though. We gave the ball away again in our own half. That has been the major issue leading to goals.

 

[Triggaaar]

It wasn't though. We gave the ball away again in our own half.

No we didn't. Re-watch the goal. We couldn't give it away in our half, we didn't have anyone in our half. Spurs played it out from their keeper, we defended on the halfway line and we didn't get a touch until it was on the way into our net.

Solanke only had one touch in our half. Spurs' second touch in our half, was in our penalty area!

 

[giveusfalmerplease]

I thought you could only make subs 3 times in a game?

not sure if anyone replied but the estupinan sub at half time is "free". i only found that out last season

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Two goals were from missplaced passes (Webster and Verbruggen), one was a penalty and the last was an error from Estupinan leading to a free kick. All had nothing to do with the high line.

Go and watch again, see what led to the situation that saw Pervis haul the guy down for Palmer’s free kick - THEN tell us that none of the goals had ‘anything to do with the high line’.

 

[American Seagle]

No we didn't. Re-watch the goal. We couldn't give it away in our half, we didn't have anyone in our half. Spurs played it out from their keeper, we defended on the halfway line and we didn't get a touch until it was on the way into our net.

Solanke only had one touch in our half. Spurs' second touch in our half, was in our penalty area!

Rutter gives the ball away in our own half for the first. For the second it's not a ball over the high back line at all, they never break past us and it results is a weak shot and an individual error.

 

[American Seagle]

Go and watch again, see what led to the situation that saw Pervis haul the guy down for Palmer’s free kick - THEN tell us that none of the goals had ‘anything to do with the high line’.

Terrible positioning and misjudging the ball. Not sure that's a high line issue.

 

[Triggaaar]

Rutter gives the ball away in our own half for the first.

We're talking about the second goal so why have you added the first goal?

For the second it's not a ball over the high back line at all, they never break past us and it results is a weak shot and an individual error.

The ball went through our high back line, rather than over it. Since when did it need to go over us for the high line to be the issue? Spurs played two passes and attacked with pace and we were in immediate trouble. It was the opposite of having men behind the ball. It's also irrelevant that the shot was weak and the save attempt poor - if it had been a better shot and gone in, it would still have been a goal due our high line. You're defending the idea that the high line isn't to blame for the sake of it.

Without that high line, Maddison doesn't get the shot and they don't score.

That's not to say there aren't benefits of playing with a high back line, giving the opposition less space to work with and pressing them, but on that occasion, like on many other occasions recently, it didn't work for us.

 

[AmexRuislip]

Apologies if already.....

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

not sure if anyone replied but the estupinan sub at half time is "free". i only found that out last season

Yeh they did, but thanks. We missed last season as ST holders and this went way over my head.