13 minutes ago, ForeverCarefree said:

Strange decision not to start him given the winning run we had been on. Even stranger decision to bring him on when we were chasing the win. 

Not a knock on Jorginho but Tuchel was wrong both to leave him out of the starting XI and to bring him off the bench. 

Can only half agree.

It's never wrong to leave Jorginho out of the starting 11. But it was certainly wrong to throw him on when we were chasing the game.

 

2 hours ago, Munkworth said:

No Jorginho in the starting line up, we go in behind at half time and drop two points....

I thought this was my job?

54 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

I thought this was my job?

You need to arrive to work on time in future!

5 hours ago, Dr Gonzo said:

Totally agree on Kova and Kante not working. But I'd take Kante over Kova and Jorginho everyday of the week. The problem is neither seem to work with Kante.

I'm terms of Jorginho's defensive abilities, how many times have we seen people just walk past him. 

Fair enough, personally I prefer having Jorginho and Kovacic in the middle as they compliment each other so well, there’s definitely games they need help where we could play 3 in the midfield with Kante playing alongside them or we have someone like Mount playing a bit deeper, that would alleviate some of the deficiencies that a Kova & Jorginho midfield has in bigger games.

Jorginho\Kovacic is the combination we should play while possible for the rest of the season. Kante didn't do too much wrong, but the chemistry and fluency just not there. Although I do think the last change of the game by putting Jorginho on for Kovacic made little sense, it's almost like Tuchel is content with 1 point. If he was going for the win, could have played Ziyech in the midfield and put Giroud on.

3 minutes ago, icecoolguy22 said:

Jorginho\Kovacic is the combination we should play while possible for the rest of the season. Kante didn't do too much wrong, but the chemistry and fluency just not there. Although I do think the last change of the game by putting Jorginho on for Kovacic made little sense, it's almost like Tuchel is content with 1 point. If he was going for the win, could have played Ziyech in the midfield and put Giroud on.

Kante didn't play bad. I have a feeling that Tuchel might start the next game with him again.

8 hours ago, Gol15 said:

Kante didn't play bad. I have a feeling that Tuchel might start the next game with him again.

Kante didn't play bad, but he offered next to nothing in attack, and Kovacic didn't look like the same player. Jorginho stays deep while Kovacic can get forward, they have much better chemistry. Kante/Kovacic just doesn't work that well. 

I think we missed their partnership more than a lot of people would care to admit. Although in fairness, it didn't help with having stale wingbacks with no pace and Kurt Zouma doing an absolute blunder at the back. 

12 minutes ago, Slojo said:

Kante didn't play bad, but he offered next to nothing in attack, and Kovacic didn't look like the same player. Jorginho stays deep while Kovacic can get forward, they have much better chemistry. Kante/Kovacic just doesn't work that well. 

I think we missed their partnership more than a lot of people would care to admit. Although in fairness, it didn't help with having stale wingbacks with no pace and Kurt Zouma doing an absolute blunder at the back. 

If you look at how Kante as an individual plays, then you'd say "yes he had a good game".  But you have to look beyond that at the team dynamic, and the impact that playing him in a side set up as a possession-based team has on the other players. I would hope TT reverts to Jorginho/Kovacic from now on ... and if he insists to play Kante then we have to revert to the counter-attacking style favoured by Conte.

1 hour ago, Slojo said:

Kante didn't play bad, but he offered next to nothing in attack, 

So how is that any different to what Jorginho offers? 

Find it unbelievable people are saying Kante offered nothing in attack. Makes me wonder what they were watching and what they interpret the word "attack" to mean. I believe it to mean attempting to always go forwards, running into the opponent's territory,  looking to consistently win the ball higher up the pitch. 

Kante clearly did all those things yesterday. With great aplomb. He regularly got the ball into forward areas for the strikers to use. The fact they didn't have the technique or quality to make anything of it is not Kante's fault.

 

 

 

Just now, just said:

Find it unbelievable people are saying Kante offered nothing in attack. Makes me wonder what they were watching and what they interpret the word "attack" to mean. I believe it to mean attempting to always go forwards, running into the opponent's territory,  looking to consistently win the ball higher up the pitch. 

Kante clearly did all those things yesterday. With great aplomb. He regularly got the ball into forward areas for the strikers to use. The fact they didn't have the technique or quality to make anything of it is not Kante's fault.

 

 

 

Passing forward is just stupid, it increase your chance of misspasses. It is better to keep passing 5 yard to left and right in our own half so we can have total control on the game by keeping the ball in hallway line instead of opp last third. 

4 minutes ago, just said:

Find it unbelievable people are saying Kante offered nothing in attack. Makes me wonder what they were watching and what they interpret the word "attack" to mean. I believe it to mean attempting to always go forwards, running into the opponent's territory,  looking to consistently win the ball higher up the pitch. 

Kante clearly did all those things yesterday. With great aplomb. He regularly got the ball into forward areas for the strikers to use. The fact they didn't have the technique or quality to make anything of it is not Kante's fault.

 

 

 

Don’t be silly you have to pass it 800 times before you reach the final third. Kante’s 7 winning tackles and 4 interceptions had nothing to do with us being on the front foot throughout the match.

5 minutes ago, just said:

Find it unbelievable people are saying Kante offered nothing in attack. Makes me wonder what they were watching and what they interpret the word "attack" to mean. I believe it to mean attempting to always go forwards, running into the opponent's territory,  looking to consistently win the ball higher up the pitch. 

Kante clearly did all those things yesterday. With great aplomb. He regularly got the ball into forward areas for the strikers to use. The fact they didn't have the technique or quality to make anything of it is not Kante's fault.

 

 

 

Maybe i'm mistaking you for someone just but haven't you had issues with Kovacic's offensive output? In terms of lacking goals and assists?

Because if it was you then surely you would have to hold Kante to the same standard?

7 minutes ago, Sindre said:

Maybe i'm mistaking you for someone just but haven't you had issues with Kovacic's offensive output? In terms of lacking goals and assists?

Because if it was you then surely you would have to hold Kante to the same standard?

Absolutely I do. None of our central midfielders are very creative players. None of them are fantastic passers of the ball ala Pirlo or Fabregas. None of them are powerhouses aka Viera, Keane or Essien. None of them have the dribbling skills of a Duff or Robben.

But two of them are able to run with ball pretty well and one can't run with the ball at all. So from an attacking perspective Kante and Kova offer more IMO.

Hope to see more of Gilmour too. Based on what we have seen already I think he can be the most creative option of them all. The only thing that bothers me about him is his physique. 

Edited February 21, 20215 yr by just

22 minutes ago, charierre said:

Don’t be silly you have to pass it 800 times before you reach the final third. Kante’s 7 winning tackles and 4 interceptions had nothing to do with us being on the front foot throughout the match.

Careful mate. Midfielders are graded on pointing and 5 yard passes around here. Don't bring defending into it, that's so 2016.

27 minutes ago, charierre said:

Don’t be silly you have to pass it 800 times before you reach the final third. Kante’s 7 winning tackles and 4 interceptions had nothing to do with us being on the front foot throughout the match.

Agreed. But it's not just that charierre, it's the amount of times Kante ran forwards from the centre of the pitch with the ball at his feet. He did it all game. If that's not attacking intent what the hell is?

I’ve said it on other threads. I don’t think Kante-Kovacic was the problem yesterday. I get that  it looks like it was coz we didn’t win so it adds to the still small body of “evidence”.  I also get the criticism of Kante’s passing (it’s a weakness for sure) but he certainly makes up for it in other areas. It’s fine to have a preference here (I don’t have a strong one and see qualities in both Kante and Jorginho ), but I don’t think you can pin yesterday’s failure to win on the midfield duo when it’s simultaneously so obvious to everyone that the problem lay with the attack. We got into many great attacking positions which the attacking players failed to convert into chances and goals.

1 hour ago, ForeverCarefree said:

So how is that any different to what Jorginho offers? 

Because he covers for Kovacic. 

Does Kovacic play better next to Jorginho, or Kante? 

28 minutes ago, Slojo said:

Because he covers for Kovacic. 

Does Kovacic play better next to Jorginho, or Kante? 

I understand where you’re coming from Slojo and where you’re going with this. You are probably right. But i don’t think there’s enough evidence yet. Sure Kovacic had his worst game yesterday since Tuchel arrived (still not terrible by any means and he did some pretty good things till about halfway through the second half), but there are many possible reasons for that other than the fact he played next to Kante: element of fatigue, lacking some sharpness, playing in the day time rather than the evening (am being serious btw, something I’ve noticed)... as i said you’re probably right and personally I would have stuck with jorginho-kova, but I’m not sure this idea that Kovacic and Kante can’t play together in the same team  is necessarily correct, and could even pull up some stats from last season to back that up (we actually had some decent wins with them in the centre)

For me it sounds that the biased people against Jorginho are constantly going to defend anyone else that plays in his position just because they hate Jorginho.

The problem is that our best duo in the midfield really has been Jorginho-Kovacic.

That has been the simple truth yet people constantly want to simply remove Jorginho from the team and push anyone else despite of the lack of results. For the best of the club and for reaching top 4 we should use what has worked the best - Jorginho and Kovacic in the midfield.

20 hours ago, True Blue23 said:

Have you looked at our schedule? We cannot start every player every game and then just take him off at 60/70 mins, because we have got only 3 substitutions. 

If it's not already then top 4 should be the clubs main priority. We don't have the quality offensively to challenge for the CL.

We had a very winnable game here, no need to change what has been working. You rest Jorginho v Atletico and Man Utd, not Southampton. 

1 hour ago, Slojo said:

Because he covers for Kovacic. 

Does Kovacic play better next to Jorginho, or Kante? 

Does Kovacic need covering for? The two sitting in the pivot generally police either the left or right hand side of the pitch. 

Kante covers probably better than anyone. He recovers the constantly. 

But why does it matter who Kovacic plays better next to? He isn't our most valuable player in terms of what he contributes and if he can only contribute when given lots of protection then he is part of the problem. 

6 hours ago, Slojo said:

Because he covers for Kovacic. 

Does Kovacic play better next to Jorginho, or Kante? 

 Slojo with respect you originally said Kante offered next to nothing in attack yesterday, (I totally disagree for the reasons I have detailed above).

Forever carefree responded by asking you how is that any different to Jorginho?

You have answered that question by saying....... "because he covers for Kovacic"!!

Thank you. I think you have made the point for us. Kante is clearly a far better offensive option than Jorginho. In any scenario.

Edited February 21, 20215 yr by just

18 minutes ago, just said:

 Slojo with respect you originally said Kante offered next to nothing in attack yesterday, (I totally disagree for the reasons I have detailed above).

Forever carefree responded by asking you how is that any different to Jorginho?

You have answered that question by saying....... "because he covers for Kovacic"!!

Thank you. I think you have made the point for us. Kante is clearly a far better offensive option than Jorginho. In any scenario.

Jorginho is the first name on the team sheet in midfield if you want to maximise your chances of winning the game.

And his best partner in a midfield pair is Kovacic, who is much better as the box to box, linking the play with the attack than Kante is ...

You just have to look at the results for the various combinations. It's a very clear conclusion !

On 20/02/2021 at 15:22, LongtimerLurker said:

He also helps establish a passing rhythm within the team. He does have his limitations but one thing he does bring to the team is a calmness in possession. Without him we had no real tempo today losing possesion frequently with basic passes.

I feel for Tuchel and the squad today because he has to rotate at some point but clearly this system needs very specific personnel, and for whatever reason he is hesitant to change the system (fear of losing presumably).

This is actually the part of his game that I dislike. I understand his importance in being available when players get in tight positions etc. However  it’s the times that he makes himself available for   passes from the back line only to play it back to them to receive it again and play it back again. This IMO slows our rhythm, takes sting out of our attacking options and let’s the opposition reorganise.

I think TT is maybe trying to get him playing a bit quicker and a bit more forward.