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

[Seagull58]

I've not watch it, but is the answer 'because they are mentally weak'?

(It's actually because they were stupidly complacent and didn't bother to firm up their control of the midfield).

In summary, 1. Estupinian playing further upfield to free up Mitoma and give Porro a problem, 2. Kulesevski having to do the DM work of two players because Maddison stood near the halfway line and watched from a distance instead of doing defensive work, 3. Rutter outfought three Tottenham players for the third goal because he wanted it more (as did all the other Brighton players), and 4. Romero and Porro stood like statues as Welbeck ran past them to head the winner.

 

[Falmer Flutter ©]

Spurs were decent first half but no way should they have been three or four up according to some. Based on what? On another day a better ball sees Johnson score after 30 seconds, but equally on another day (actually, most days) Bart saves Maddison's shot. What else did they have apart from a well-worked opener? Johnson blazing over? That didn't even make Sky's extended 30-minutes highlights yesterday. The offside "goal"? Well if it was offside then that's the high line working as it should. So they had a lot of joy down the wings, which we ultimately got back to defend. Largely sorted that issue second half as good teams do. We were having our best spell of the game before Maddison's sucker punch and equally could claim that on another day Danny gets a better connection on Mitoma's cross. Don't get me wrong, I'll take the second-half performance over the first all day long, but there's been a massive over-reaction.

 

[Triggaaar]

And yet, by xG, we were only 0.3 behind Spurs at the break. Welbeck's chance was the best chance of the half (0.4xG), the 'glorious chance' in the first minute was worth 0.07xG

You're misunderstanding xg. It was 0.07 after the shit ball. If the cross was average (instead of shit), the xg for that would be high.

 

[Muzzman]

Luke and his sex faces

Well... there's a band name if I ever saw one.

 

[kevo]

Spurs were decent first half but no way should they have been three or four up according to some. Based on what? On another day a better ball sees Johnson score after 30 seconds, but equally on another day (actually, most days) Bart saves Maddison's shot. What else did they have apart from a well-worked opener? Johnson blazing over? That didn't even make Sky's extended 30-minutes highlights yesterday. The offside "goal"? Well if it was offside then that's the high line working as it should. So they had a lot of joy down the wings, which we ultimately got back to defend. Largely sorted that issue second half as good teams do. We were having our best spell of the game before Maddison's sucker punch and equally could claim that on another day Danny gets a better connection on Mitoma's cross. Don't get me wrong, I'll take the second-half performance over the first all day long, but there's been a massive over-reaction.

You also forgot Danny's header, which was only just wide.

Like you, I don't agree with the 'they should have been 3 or 4 up' line, 2-0 was about right - but they did cut through us very easily.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

Well... there's a band name if I ever saw one.

Cover art draws itself!

 

[American Seagle]

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



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.

The way you are arguing it every goal is due to a high like as we have one. It's like saying all the goals we conceed are due to having a goalkeeper.
Just because a high line is present doesn't mean the goal was a result of it. If you watch it we deal with the initial break fairly well and when they get to the box and around it we are deeper then their attacking players.

 

[tronnogull]

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This is class. Apols if someone already posted it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Well... there's a band name if I ever saw one.

I have all 3 of their Rough trade albums on vinyl, mate.

 

[Jimmy Come Lately]

I think a large part of the concern with our style of play stems from the offside 'goals', which in reality are worth 0.00 xG but fans treat as if they are real chances as the play is allowed to develop after the offence. We wouldn't have the same opinion if we waited to see if there was a goal after a defender was scythed down before awarding the free kick.

I wonder if we'll become a little more relaxed about the high line when the semi-automated offside detection comes in (after whichever international break that is) and these apparent breaks of the line are called back before the ball is in the back of the net. Watching the "goal" then hoping for the VAR decision is stressful for fans and can't be much fun for the keeper and defenders either.

 

[kevo]

I wonder if we'll become a little more relaxed about the high line when the semi-automated offside detection comes in (after whichever international break that is)

Hasn't it been pushed back now, for some reason? I doubt we'll see it before next season.

 

[nwgull]

We were and oddly the same happened in the last game we came back from 2 goals down. Charlton in 2015 if you were wondering.

Are you sure about that? I distinctly remember Hemed’s winning header spinning over the line in front of the North Stand after the keeper had blocked it.

Charlton had been reduced to 10 men by then though, so that’s something in common with the City 3-2 that we’ve bettered on Sunday - ie did against 11 men!

 

[Triggaaar]

The way you are arguing it every goal is due to a high like as we have one.

We don't have one when defending a corner, we don't have one when playing out from the back and losing the ball, or when we've managed to get everyone back behind the ball and in position.

But for Spurs' second goal they cut us wide open because of our high line. They only had one touch in our half before then having it in our box and you honestly can't see that as an issue with the high line?

If you watch it we deal with the initial break fairly well

How is letting Timo Werner take his first touch in our box, after one pass, dealing with it? Because we were struggling to get back, when he simply laid it off to Maddison on the edge of the box, Maddison had over 6 yards between him and any of our players. That's a clear problem with our high line.

We stopped playing with the high line after taking the lead and looked more comfortable.

No doubt you won't accept any of that, which is fine. Our club will either get better at playing with a high line, or we'll simply have to stop it.

 

[nwgull]

I wonder if we'll become a little more relaxed about the high line when the semi-automated offside detection comes in (after whichever international break that is) and these apparent breaks of the line are called back before the ball is in the back of the net. Watching the "goal" then hoping for the VAR decision is stressful for fans and can't be much fun for the keeper and defenders either.

The semi automated VAR doesn’t give offside in real time, does it? Goals will still be scored; it’ll just make the VAR check quicker.

 

[Weststander]

Really interesting, thanks.

Second half their 4 defenders were shockingly poor and the team was handicapped by an incredibly lazy Maddison when they didn’t have the ball.

 

[AZ Gull]

Are you sure about that? I distinctly remember Hemed’s winning header spinning over the line in front of the North Stand after the keeper had blocked it.

Charlton had been reduced to 10 men by then though, so that’s something in common with the City 3-2 that we’ve bettered on Sunday - ie did against 11 men!

Yep, he's had a bit of a 'mare with that post!

 

[Jimmy Come Lately]

The semi automated VAR doesn’t give offside in real time, does it? Goals will still be scored; it’ll just make the VAR check quicker.

Oh, maybe not. I didn't pay enough attention to that funny winter World Cup to see how it was used. From somewhere I got the impression that the technology was able to keep up with play and give an instant assessment of offside calls, so I imagined it working something like the goal-line decisions and signalling the linos when it was correct to flag for a marginal offside. They could still put up the fancy visuals to "prove" the correctness of the call while we wait for the resulting free kick.

But it probably makes more sense to implement it as a faster VAR check if

• the analysis is too computationally intensive to check every forward pass in near-real-time, and instead the computer needs to be asked to calculate whether player 9 receiving the ball from player 6 was offside
• or if PGMOL want the human half of the semi-automated decision making to be with the VAR, who can use all the camera angles to determine whether an offside player is interfering with play, rather than leaving that side of things to the on-pitch officials
• or if Premier League just really likes the drama of VAR checks and goals ruled out

Hopefully even if we get a crap implementation of the technology at first, these things can be resolved over time. But maybe not in time to save FH's job.

 

[Insel affe]

I apologise in advance if already posted, I ain’t trawling back through pages…

 

[pigmanovich]

An enjoyable and informative 45 minutes of Tottenham misery in case you're still craving it: