Tottenham 2-1 Chelsea: Spurs better in defence, midfield and attack
Sam Allardyce recently said that 4-4-2 is ineffective at at the highest level, and therefore is now irrelevant to the Premiership. The traditionalists will be delighted, therefore, that Tottenham have managed to beat two of the top three sides in the division within four days – by playing a 4-4-2.
Although Spurs’ formation was the same as on Wednesday, the actual tactics were slightly different today. Whereas they defended extremely narrowly against Arsenal, almost forcing Arsenal to go around the defence rather than through it, today it was a more traditionally-spaced back four, playing higher up the pitch. Jermain Defoe and Roman Pavluychenko played up against the Chelsea centre-backs, with one (generally Defoe) doing well to drop into midfield to pick up Chelsea’s deepest midfielder when not in possession.
Chelsea played a 4-3-3 similar to the one they played recently at Old Trafford, albeit with Didier Drogba in for Nicolas Anelka, featuring Joe Cole and Florent Malouda supporting from moderately wide positions either side.
The key when playing a 4-4-2 against a 4-3-3 is to use your wide midfielders well. Stuttgart showed this when they outplayed Barcelona earlier in the season. If you have a forward dropping deep to pick up the holding midfielder (as Spurs did) then you can afford to tell your wide players to maintain their wide position, making it difficult for the opposition to pick them up. If two strikers remain high up the pitch against the defenders, then the opposition holding midfielder will be free, forcing your wide midfielders inside and then leaving space for the opposition full-backs to exploit.
Tottenham consistently looked to Gareth Bale, and he caused Chelsea no end of problems. Joe Cole was only supposed to track him as far as the halfway line, Deco would leave the playmaker Modric open for a pass if he came to the wing, and so the responsibility fell to Paulo Ferriera. But this resulted in the Chelsea full-backs playing extremely high up the pitch even when not in possession, and therefore basically left a 2 v 2 situation at the back. There, Tottenham’s strikers were able to drag John Terry and Alex around the pitch, making it perfect for counter-attacks, and Tottenham caught Chelsea out when breaking quickly from their own half, particularly through balls towards Bale.
Bale had the beating of Ferreira both for pace and in the air – and it was no surprise when Chelsea’s right-back was replaced at half-time.
Tottenham’s intention to get the ball to Bale as often as possible can be demonstrated by Heurelho Gomes’ passing Chalkboard:
It was also notable that Luka Modric often took up a position deeper than Tom Huddlestone. That was the case in midweek, but the effect was even more obvious here – with Chelsea’s midfield three playing deep, Modric had time and space on the ball to dictate play. Carlo Ancelotti didn’t instruct one of Chelsea’s midfielders to track Modric, and Tottenham were happy to play through the Croatian – he completed 49 passes compared to Huddlestone’s 15.
Chelsea were sluggish in possession throughout in midfield, but the problem may have stemmed from the front. Against Manchester United, Nicolas Anelka played the lone striker role brilliantly in the first half, as he dropped deep and linked with the wide players. Drogba’s link-up play today was really poor, and it was no surprise when Ancelotti sent for Anelka – although he replaced Joe Cole, rather than Drogba.
Compare Anelka’s first half performance at Old Trafford with Drogba’s today, playing in the same role:
Chelsea’s problem, though, was that the system that struggled in the first half didn’t change. Anelka on for Cole didn’t change much – Anelka is generally quite ineffective in the wide-right position (Branislav Ivanovic on for Paolo Ferreira offered Chelsea slightly less going forward from right-back, although they were more secure against Bale).
Ancelotti may have been better switching to the diamond formation he favoured at the beginning of the season. That system was abandoned when opponents realised they could play a 4-3-3 with high wingers, deny Chelsea’s full-backs space, and Chelsea would struggle for width. But that was not the case here – Tottenham were 4-4-2. By switching to a diamond, Chelsea would have dominated the midfield area in a 4 v 2 situation, which would have forced Bentley and Bale to move centrally (where they would be less of an attacking threat) and Chelsea’s full-backs could have bombed forward. The situation at the back would have been the same (2 v 2) and Tottenham would have had another striker to contend with. Tottenham would have had an advantage in the full-back area – as Younes Kaboul and Benoit Assou-Ekotto would have been free – but neither are particularly exciting coming forward, and at 2-0 up would have played a defensive-minded game in the second half anyway.
It’s easy to be wise in hindsight, but these are the tactical changes you expect from Ancelotti, rather than the simple Anelka-for-Cole move that changed nothing. Chelsea are still odds-on for the title, but it still seems that Ancelotti isn’t quite sure of his best XI, nor his best formation. Chelsea weren’t caught out in a specific position, they were weaker all over the pitch.
Tottenham 2-1 Chelsea: Spurs better in defence, midfield and attack
“By switching to a diamond, Chelsea would have dominated the midfield area in a 4 v 2 situation, which would have forced Bentley and Bale to move centrally (where they would be less of an attacking threat) and Chelsea’s full-backs could have bombed forward. The situation at the back would have been the same (2 v 2) and Tottenham would have had another striker to contend with.”
If it really was that straightforward, why didn’t Ancelotti do it? He’s paid £6.5 million a year to make tactical decisions, after all.
6.5 million pounds a year doesn’t make you infallible. Ancelloti clearly had his own ideas about what works best for his team, and in the heat of the game, the diamond probably didn’t appeal to him immediately.
Besides, he was busy complaining about the offside, penalty, red card and seething at the injustice of it all. Oh the irony.
Because it’s a hell lot easier to analyse things after everything had finished and done, sitting in a quite room in front of a laptop. Also, since Ancelotti didn’t use that suggested formation in this match, no one knows what would happen if he had used it. As ZM mentioned ‘may have been better’, I cannot see much too wrong there (probably the ‘would have dominated’ is not so good though).
He did seem to lose faith with the diamond quite suddenly, almost as if he had an epiphany that it wasn’t working and he would never return to it.
The diamond was only one alternative, of course – he could have switched to a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-1-2…well, anything really. It just seemed odd that at half-time he used his two remaining substituions – and yet didn’t even vaguely change the shape of the side that had been so comprehensively outplayed in the first half. The diamond seemed the most logical alternative shape since the Chelsea players had played with it before.
But then Ancelotti – whilst being a great Champions League manager – has often made curious decisions in league games. 1 title in his 10 seasons with Juve and Milan isn’t a great record.
You can’t say what would have happeneed if Chelsea had switched to a diamond. They may have got worse, unless you have a crystal ball coupled with 20/20 hindsight of course.
Maybe Ancelloti should be fired and you should take over, you seem to know more than he does.
I’ve noticed United and Chelsea using this 4-3-3 formation..or 4-1-4-1…basically favoring that lone striker. United have Rooney and Chelsea Drogba..but I’m not a big fan of these formations at all. The lone striker becomes increasingly ineffective when the other team plays a defensive midfielder in front of defense. He gets marked out of the game, has to do a fair bit of running around to create or receive passes and when he does get the ball up high, he has one too many to beat to get a shot on goal. If he’s hungry like Rooney, he tends to drop too deep to get the ball and the wingers get too pressured to lead the attack. These strikers have been given too much responsibility in that role and it shuts their natural game down, which is to score. And playing a deep lying striker in the pocket isn’t really a solution since he has to choose, every time he gets the ball, to score or pass. And being a striker, instinct favors the former. It’s why Tevez was so good at punching in goals from behind, but ineffective when it came to creating for Adebayor or the wingers today against United.
I can see why United favor the lone striker role, with Ronaldo last year, the goals rushed in from the wings. But this year, the wingers haven’t matched up to that in either team (Robben used to do it for Chelsea). I hope Fergie changes to a 4-3-1-2 with Berba in the pocket, and next year buy a real AMC for that pocket behind Rooney. And I agree with you on the 4-4-2 diamond for Chelsea.
Looking at these two recent Spurs performances, what’s the best strategy United can use next weekend to beat them assuming Spurs use the same tactics? Surely use Rafael (RB) and Nani (LW)?
Interesting to see Tottenham so effective the last two matches with Modric and Huddlestone in the middle. They certainly haven’t missed Palacios–perhaps in hindsight an auspicious time to serve a two-match ban. For Tottenham, if not for him.
Indeed. In a 4-4-2 it’s so important that the partnerships work well – the two centre-backs, the two strikers, the two central midfielders and the two down each flank. And what these two games have shown is that Bale and Assou-Ekotto work well together, Defoe and Pav work well together and Modric and Huddlestone work well together. The centre-back pairing have played well in both games – the only question is on the right, and attacking Bentley seems quite a good tactic.
one of things I notice for supporting Tottenham is their consistency to play 2 strikers up front, with the exception of the first half of last season Spurs switch to a 4-5-1. With White Hart Lane’s dimension looks short & narrow, & it helps Spurs defend narrow & deeper against Arsenal, & with Defoe dropping deep to pick up Mikel, he isn’t that far from Pavlyuchenko. When Eidur came, he continue Defoe’s role, & good movement from Pavlyuchenko help Spurs launching very good counter attacks.
This system looks very good in White Hart Lane’s dimension, but I wary of Tottenham’s record at Old Trafford. It’s very poor. I also hope with Old Trafford’s more bigger dimension, & their continuity to play 4-5-1, I hope they play a 4-5-1 with Pavlyuchenko alone, & Palacios besides Huddlestone, behind Modric.
Wouldn’t it be more correct to say Spurs played 4-4-1-1 (at least out of possession), vs a Chelsea 4-1-2-3, thus matching up?
Even in a proper 4-4-2 vs 4-3-3 matchup though, the likes of Mikel aren’t exactly going to make great use of being a free man, especially in contrast to the likes of Scholes being a free man.
Finally not sure how much the tactics mattered, Chelsea just had one of their (quite numerous this season) very poor days. Drogba, Deco, Ferreira, Terry…awful. Though Tottenham did play well as well, should have won by more.
Yes, Spurs did well to counter Chelsea’s free man in the midfield by dropping a striker in, so yeah it could be described as a 4-4-1-1, although with neither striker in either of the roles full-time, and Defoe was quick to place himself high up the pitch against the centre-back when Spurs had the ball.
Mikel does a decent job as the free man, I think. His passing is solid and consistent – he’s not Scholes, but the fact that Redknapp took the unusual (for him) step of getting a striker to drop in midfield would indicate that opposition managers are concerned about Mikel having too much time on the ball.
I don’t know. Even when he finds himself in loads of space – which seems to be quite regularly – he doesn’t seem able to do much more than his usual short and simple passes. He’s not actively bad as he’ll keep things ticking over and be an outlet but he provides so little threat. I can’t help but feel he makes poor use of the space he’s given.
As for Redknapp’s move, perhaps he more spied a weakness? Mikel does play an important role, but I’m not convinced he plays it well. If I were managing against Chelsea I think I’d try to exploit him.
Gareth Bale seems to be an opposing tactician’s nightmare. Size, pace, a whale of a shot and good service from the flank, and a wee bit of trickery attacking an opponent one-on-one. Although he seems at home in the midfield, he’s not lacking in the defensive aspects of the game. Against small, mobile fullbacks, Bale’s size and strength are his advantage. Against larger, more defensively physical fullbacks, Bale’s pace and technical ability give him the edge.
How nice for Gomes that instead of sending long balls down the middle into a numbers-down situation, he can send it to Bale in a one-on-one, often against a smaller player.
Finally Spurs have got that left footed player that they’ve been craving since (before!) Andy Reid!
I agree ZM that Ivanovic from the start would have been a better choice to nullify him. Chelsea supporters, does Ferreira outpace Ivanovic?
How Spurs miss Essien, a player who could do a job in eight outfield positions, and be the best player on the pitch if deployed anywhere in the back 5-6! I hope for the sake of competition and spectacle that he is fully fit for the World Cup!
Why no word, ZM, on the replacement of Mikel? Was it tactical or enforced? No mention either of Dawson’s performance, which has some pining for him to be on the plane to South Africa.
You are right, Chelsea switching to the diamond would have helped. But I sense that Ancelotti is reluctant to play the diamond without Essien at the base. Without Essien’s superior mobility, you play 2 of Ballack/Lampard/Mikel. Ballack plays wide right better than the other 2 but between the 3 of them, they don’t have the dynamism to switch defence into attack quickly and Chelsea tend to get overrun and start defending deeper and deeper
Personally I don’t think Essien’s all that suited to playing at the base of a diamond. His best performances in Ancelotti’s early dalliances with the diamond tended to be on the right side with Mikel at the base.
This actually ties quite well with how Ancelotti’s diamond worked at Milan; like Essien, Gattuso would seem a more natural fit for the base but actually works better on the right, with a more natural passer at the base.
Granted, Mikel is no Pirlo, but still. I’d even suggest Ballack’s a better fit at the base of a diamond than Essien.
Bale certainly seems to have more joy against a 4-3-3/4-3-2-1 formation. The full backs are generally more exposed as the wingers in front of them play higher up the pitch than in a 4-4-2. Against a player like Bale you need to double up on him likewise with Aaron Lennon .
A great example of how to nullify both these players was given by Fulham on the occasions they have played Spurs this season. Damien Duff is a great player offensively but just as good defensively and is seen frequently helping out his full back in most games Fulham play and both he and Chris Baird did a great job on Bale in the first FA Cup game at Craven Cottage. Clint Dempsey and Paul Konchesky did a similar job on Lennon in the league game at the Cottage, who came into the game on top form and was very, very quiet. They achieved this by doubling up, with the full back getting tight and if they missed their tackle (which was rare) Duff and Dempsey were there to cover. Both games ended 0-0 but this was mainly down to the brilliance of Gomes, particularly in the league game.
Spurs were having similar problems in the replay, Fulham were one up and knocking it about for fun, until 3rd choice right back chopped down Bale, Fulham defended the free kick atrociously and the momentum was back with Spurs and they went on to win the game comfortably.
It doesn’t seem unlikely that after playing against Fulham 4 times, Harry Redknapps formation deployed against Chelsea and Arsenal was very Fulhamesque. A 4-4-2 Narrow, with a striker dropping back to help in midfield (Gera). Glenn Hoddle mentioned something similar on Sky after the game as well.
I disagree that Ancelotti is reluctant to play the diamond without Essien at the base. Essien has missed much of the season through injury anyway & Ancelotti has favoured the diamond in many games without the Ghanian. In fact, I think Essien would be wasted in that position as he adds so much more to the team going forward.
Deco has played a few times at the base of the diamond, as Ancelotti doesn’t want a tough tackler, he wants a ball player, a Pirlo.
I think it’s worth noting that Ancelotti abandoned the diamond earlier in the season after a few bad results, which resulted in some good wins in a 433 system. However, he then went back to the diamond again and surprise surprise – the bad results returned. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if the team meeting the players supposedly had involved a group of players basically telling Ancelotti to go back to 433 for a second time.
I think he obviously favours the diamond and only plays the 433 because it’s what the players are more comfortable with. I would expect a Chelsea team to start next season with the diamond once again – with a few new players added to the squad.