[Albion] The high line is great

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think I can explain

Nobody said anything like that

Mmmmm...... really?

I have said repeatedly that you need fast defenders to play like this.

It seems I may not have been entirely correct in that it actually requires the team working really hard at doing what they have been coached to do, rather than having actual Billy Whizz and Usain Bolt in the back 4.

So @Han Solo is correct in the sense of his waspish comment capturing accurately the essence of the piece.

As for exact words in an exact order, failure of his opponents to provide proof of said item is how Trump maintains he is always right.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I heard them say pretty much exactly that on Talksport, on Guardian football weekly and on BBC 5live in the match build up. Two teams playing high lines but Brighton aren't suited to it because we have slow Dunk and Webster CBs, whereas Spurs are suited to it because they have quick CBs like VDV. Works for them, suicide for us. It's been pretty standard punditry all week.

Precisely.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It just invalidates that whole paragraph as does the fact Van der Ven would have caught Glenn Murray even if he’d had a ten years head start.

There is another tactic that doesn't always work.

Playing the man instead of the ball.

 

[Change at Barnham]

Yup. I had this evil plan about falsifying a quote and presenting it as a factually exact representation of reality and then I chickened out when asked about it. That is correct.

It certainly wasn't an attempt to catch a real existing sentiment and put a generalised verison of it into quotation marks as a "you get the gist" (I've not actually said 'you get the gist', but you get the gist, or maybe you don't) thing.
Nothing like that; I admit, I had a plan to con the world into believing someone had said exactly the thing I put within quotation marks, and your sherlockholmesery destroyed the whole bluff.

Is that a satisfying answer? Can we move on to talk about high lines?

Great answer.
I'll have some of what he's smoking.

 

[London Irish]

Strangely - if you look at that abomination of a second goal we conceded, we blew it because we weren't high enough. There was a gap between our back line and midfield two that you could drive a tank through. Remember how the Spurs right back was essentially trapped on the touchline deep towards the North Stand and he thought I better get rid of this before Ange shouts at me for being caught in possession. So he hoofed it into our half and Solanke couldn't believe it there was none of our players home. Bart did the rest. I'm more annoyed about tactical plans being obviously ballsed up, not us having a tactical plan.

On a separate but related subject, I took a friend who hadn't seen us play live for about 8 months and his one overall comment was: "Brighton play a lot more long ball now, don't they?"

 

[Terry Butcher Tribute Act]

Not interested in an RDZ comparison.

The high line was great yesterday bar the first 26 seconds. It was absolutely fine after that and an extraordinary turnaround in the 2nd half with some great football.

Chelsea felt naive imho, although the number of offsides Chelsea had make me think the idea had legs, it just ended up backfiring on us. Having said that, we caught Palmer on the wrong day, and just as on Sunday, individual errors exacerbated the situation.

Young manager, obviously talented, getting to grips with a formation that is still quite new to him. I think it will be fine. And hell, if we end up 6th as we are right now after some tough games then Swansman is right, playing a high line with a defence as slow as ours will end up being a revolutionary tactic.

 

[Guinness Boy]

 

[Shaktarman]

The high line is far from great. Suicide v Chelsea. Today was too deep to start with. We’ll get there soon though and find the right balance. Sorry, not a fan of either.