Young Boys 3-2 Tottenham: Spurs fortunate to avoid a thrashing
The starting line-ups
A wonderful match – Tottenham looked like being given the thrashing of their life after half an hour, but recovered to take home a decent result, considering the two away goals.
They made three changes from the side that were unfortunate not to beat Manchester City at the weekend – in came Sebastien Bassong, Giovani dos Santos and Roman Pavlyuchenko. The 4-4-2 remained.
Young Boys lined up with a very interesting 4-2-3-1 shape, that became a 4-1-4-1 and a lopsided 3-3-3-1 at various points in the game.
The first thing to note was Young Boys’ intense, Chile-esque pressing from the start of the game. Their wingers forced Tottenham’s full-backs backwards, Henri Bienvue harassed the centre-backs, and Xavier Hochstrasser moved forward onto Luka Modric, with Moreno Costanzo occupying Wilson Palacios, leaving Thierry Doubai as the holding midfielder.
In a scene reminiscent of the onslaught Arsenal suffered in the opening of their tie against Barcelona this spring, Spurs simply crumbled, unable to handle the pressure, incapable of stringing a few passes together. Michael Dawson’s passing was woeful, the usually immaculate Modric continually lost the ball, whilst the two strikers – who remained high up the pitch – were barely involved.
Young Boys shape
Young Boys’ shape was particularly interesting, switching between a three-man defence when on the attack, and a flat back four when defending. The key in all this was an Englishman, Scott Sutter, who played significantly in advance of Christoph Spycher and looked to support David Degen on the right, before dropping into the defensive line when his side lost the ball. With the use of this player, Young Boys had an extra attacking option when going forward, whilst retaining 3 v 2 at the back. This required Spycher to shift across the pitch laterally to make the back three and back four balanced, though he also attacked down the left on occasion.
Young Boys had already hit the post before they went ahead, a slightly lucky goal finished by Senad Lulic. But when Bienvue doubled their lead on 13 minutes, 2-0 was not an unfair reflection of the balance of play. Spurs defended too high up the pitch and couldn’t cope with Bienvue’s pace – Dawson got himself into an awful position square on, and Bienvue simply waltzed past him before passing the ball wide of Gomes and into the far corner.
The numerical disadvantage Spurs had in midfield was playing into the hands of Costanzo, a classic number ten. He was able to dictate play from a dangerous position, constantly getting the better of Palacios, and his perfectly-weighted through ball found Hochstrasser’s run from midfield, and he powered home to make it 3-0 after just half an hour.
Two strikers a problem for Spurs
Spurs’ most obvious problem was the use of two strikers who stayed high up the pitch, not looking to play any defensive role whatsoever. At one point, Doubai put his foot on the ball and had a few seconds to look up and switch a long, diagonal pass to the right wing. Not a particularly unusual sight in football – see Paul Scholes’ performance on Monday – but in contrast to the lack of time Modric was afforded, it summed up the differences between the two sides. Young Boys were defending with ten outfield players, Tottenham with just eight. One of the strikers needed to drop in on one of the Young Boys midfielders when Spurs lost the ball, as they did towards the end of last season with some success.
Redknapp changed things soon after, bringing on Tom Huddlestone for Benoit Assou-Ekotto and putting Gareth Bale at left-back, and Spurs immediately had more control of the game in the centre of midfield with two holding players. Set-pieces seemed to be their best bet for a goal, and Bassong headed home excellently when left unmarked in the box for the second time in ten minutes to give hem crucial goal before the first half was over.
Second half changes
The second half line-ups
The true change came at half-time, though. There was another substitution, with Niko Kranjcar replacing Modric, but Spurs’ overall shape had changed. To start with, there was more variation from the front two. Jermain Defoe and Roman Pavlyuchenko took it in turns to drop into deeper positions, and Defoe looked more lively, showed better lateral movement, and was involved in build-up play more.
Kranjcar drifted inside to cause Young Boys problems from a central playmaking position (something Spurs lacked since they were now playing two holding players), which caused Sutter problems in his unorthodox role, pushing him inside. This allowed Bale forward on the overlap, where the Welshman delivered a couple of superb crosses. On the other side, dos Santos pushed higher up the pitch and made life difficult for Spycher, whose defensive responsibilities in a back three were not suited to dealing with an advanced winger.
Pavlyuchenko strikes
But the main change was simply that there was more movement from Tottenham – they had been so static and rigid in the first half, that they were very, very easy to defend against – and very easy to press. Young Boys’ pressing was noticeably poorer as the match wore on – it’s simply very difficult to do that for 90 minutes.
In truth, 3-2 flattered Spurs – Young Boys could have scored two goals on the counter-attack, although they were pushing forward with fewer numbers. The tie-turning strike came from Pavlyuchenko with a superb goal – not just for the ferocious strike into the top corner, but because of his prior dummy, and substitute Robbie Keane’s neat pass into his path. The use of two strikers may have cost Spurs defensively, but it was fantastic interplay from two strikers that gave them that crucial goal.
The final ten minutes saw the sides call a truce – they passed it around in their own halves under little pressure, both content with 3-2.
Conclusion
A good example of when not to use 4-4-2 – away from home, in Europe, against a technically proficient side. Spurs were hopelessly naive in the opening period, and Redknapp must take some of the blame for sending them out with a shape that left them exposed in the centre of the pitch. Young Boys’ opening was excellent, with their intense pressing game causing havoc and the use of Sutter as a sole wing-back pushing Bale back into a defensive role.
We must give Redknapp credit for his tactical changes – or at least someone on Spurs’ coaching staff, as Redknapp recently declared in a national newspaper that tactics weren’t particularly important in football. The instructions – dos Santos pushing forward, Defoe dropping off, Bale getting wide – were fairly simple, but they got Spurs back into the game and probably make them favourites to progress.
Young Boys 3-2 Tottenham: Spurs fortunate to avoid a thrashing
Perhaps an interesting note: this is the second time Harry has used 1st half substitute while with spurs. He at least isn’t afraid to change things when not going well (although huddlestone should have been brought on earlier, before the 3rd goal).
Even at the start of last season, who would have thought Huddlestone would end up being so important for Spurs.
While Spurs might have called a truce in the final 10 minutes, that’s when YB’s should have scored two goals which Schneuwly failed to get over the top of, both at point blank range. Spurs got really lucky that Schneuwly didn’t make this 5-2. That may very well bite YB’s in the ass in the next game.
Nonetheless, I was very impressed by YB’s in the first half and it’s great to see these lesser known teams completely surprise the big boys, both technically and tactically.
Those two chances were before Spurs’ third goal went in. Pav scored in the 83rd minute, 2 minutes of stoppages, nothing happenedi n those nine minutes…
You are correct. Please disregard my statements about the last 10 minutes.
ZM, I’m just curious, what did you think of Lulic? Perhaps a minor point from an English fan’s perspective, but important to us Bosnia supporters. I was pleasantly surprised, because we’ve been looking for faster players that can operate on the flanks for ages now. His performance couldn’t have come at a better time, because the manager, Sušić, was complaining just yesterday that he has no one to play at left back. Of course, he played further up here, but I was still very impressed… fast, some good crossies, physically fit and disciplined defensively. I feel like he has the necessary attributes to play as a fullback, especially if Sušić opts for that 4-2-2-2 type system that we had against Germany (I believe you saw that game).
Spurs problem is Auld ‘Arry’s insistence on playing 4-4-2. The general consensus is that in Europe, the game relies on the retaining of possession. ‘Arry stuck with the system that got them into the top 4 of the Premier League, but domestic football and European football is completely different. In England, Harry deployed a destroyer/created (Palacios/Modric respectively) partnership which worked well with one midfielders role being solely to disrupt the oppositions play and the other to create. It worked well because Palacios dealt with the physical aspect of the game with tireless hassling, with Modric combing with the wide men through quick and incisive passing. European football however places more emphasis on tactics and off the ball work. Spurs’ normal passing style was found out as risky passes in Europe are quickly intercepted. For this reason, Spurs were over ran as the destroyer isn’t as advanced technically and failed to hold on to the ball for long stages.
This may be due to ‘Arry’s inexperience at the European top level and his failure to transform his teams playing style. If anything, away from home in Europe, Spurs’ should of sat back and kept the ball, playing at a slower tempo, in the process almost lulling Young Boys into submission. If your going to play a midfield 2 in Europe, at least have 2 techically astute central midfielders. I think Harry will miss a real trick by selling Jermaine Jenas. His bombarding runs from deep and his ability to keep the ball under pressure may be missed if he is sold, he seems the ideal centre midfielder for the European game.
Perhaps Harry should call up Sir Alex or (as much as I hate him) Rafa Benitez for advice on playing the European game, as these 2 seem to be the only managers that have adapted English teams into powerful European outlets by a) clever selection and b) better tactics suited to the European game. If Harry continues with a midfield 2, or at least a midfield 2 with a player so awful technically like Palacios, Spurs will be found out.
Oh and ZM, I’d love it if you could unblock me. I’ll be good. I promise
Yeah I basically agree with all of this. Ball retention is key in a game like this, and Spurs being outnumbered in midfield was a bit of a diasaster.
No idea why you were blocked but consider yourself unblocked!
Even by the second half of last season Palacios was starting to get found out, and Spurs moved to a Huddlestone/Modric pairing in the centre – generally sticking central in front of the back four. A rapid turn-around, as just a few months earlier he was considered the saviour of the club.
Palacios is a ball winner (and ball loser), hounding opposition players, tackling, but also giving away cheap fouls. Modric/Huddlestone get goal side and stick there, intercepting where possible. I think ZM’s already commented on this trend in general.
Just goes to show how quickly things turn around in football.
I agree with most of what you said although I don’t think Jenas’ ability on the ball is much better than Palacios’. Would I be right in saying Carrick looks better in Champions League due to the style of play? I haven’t seen enough of him to be sure.
I think Spurs at least one more centre midfielder to cope with the number of games should they go through. I remember Harry saying on Talksport during the summer that Spurs would need to play with 5 midfielders away from home in Europe so it was surprising to see them play 4-4-2. It’ll be interesting to see what they do should they get through.
On the 4-4-2, I was thinking that Harry talked of playing 4-5-1 against Man City near the end of last season when they won up there. I was going to suggest that he tried it against Young Boys due to this but I the argument against this would be the different style of play in Europe and YB actually put Spurs under pressure where Man City essentially play like an away team at home.
ZM, what type of formation do you think would work as an alternative to the 4-4-2 for Spurs? Of course this decision should at least be partially influenced by what the opposition is fielding, but it is not as if Redknapp has verged away from the 4-4-2 this season and last, only making strategic changes within the system (defending more narrowly against Arsenal, strikers dropping into deeper positions, etc.). Do you think a 4-2-3-1 would work with Modric in the hole would work, or perhaps a 4-3-3 with the trio of Huddlestone, Modric & Palacios in the midfield?
If I’ve learnt correctly… the 4-2-3-1 would be best for spurs here seeing as the major problem was being outnumbered in midfield. Two 4-2-3-1s playing against each other would be quite balanced for both teams but seeing as spurs pretty much have better players throughout the pitch than young boys, playing this same formation would tip the scales in their favour whilst not being explicitly attacking.
Playing a 4-3-3 wouldn’t work out as well since on the attack you’ll usually have a 3v3 unless you use your wingers which leaves you quite exposed with one covering unlike the 4-2-3-1 where you can use your wingers and CM to make a 4v3 or 4v4, keeping two midfielders in the middle of the pitch to protect you back four if you had to defend a counter attack…
Well, I would have thought Spurs should have been working on an alternative formation over the summer. I heard they played 4-2-3-1 in a couple of pre-season friendlies?
4-2-3-1 / 4-3-3 – both have their merits, I think it depends where you want to play Modric. I’d have been inclined to play a 4-5-1 / 4-3-3 myself.
They did – and they didn’t play very well in those games (IMHO). It may well be that the players available don’t fit into those positions.
Maybe one of the surprises of last season was that Modric is actually a holding midfielder…
why is modric “actually a holding midfielder”? i know he’s done well alongside h’stone/palacios in quite a deep role, but that doesn’t mean it’s his ideal position.
for me he’s perfectly suited to playing ahead of the two defensive midfielders away in europe – palacios as destroyer, huddlestone as passer and modric as creator. what’s good about him in the deeper role is his positioning and reading of thegame, which helps him make a lot of interceptions. he could still use those abilities further forward, plus he wouldn’t be as limited in terms of what he can create, because his creativity is a little stifled playing so deep in a 4-4-2. seems unlikely with auld ‘arry in charge though!
I think he exactly meant that he didn’t like that Modric was launched in DM spot
.
@sibelkacem – Yes indeed!
I have a sneaky that when he does go to ‘a bigger club’ he’ll be a revelation in a more attacking role, and we’ll wonder what Spurs missed out on.
I think spurs think they lack a striker that could play that lone role. Pavlyuchenko would be a decent option if his first touch wasn’t so bad (most of the time) and if he wasn’t looking to shoot on sight.
@mrSpang
Modric isn’t a holding midfielder, before coming to spurs he always played as an attacking midfielder playmaker at club level. Still considering Modric’s excellent peformances as central midfielder against england few years ago (part of a midfield two), I was surprised he wasn’t tried sooner in that role.
Very interesting article, I still have trouble recognizing some of these things during matches, but these articles help a lot, thank you.
Interesting thing, Redknapp mentioned the pitch as the reason they played so poorly apparently saying it was astroturf, when in reality it was something close to FieldTurf(different surfaces), do any of you guys think the pitch had anything to do with it?
Probably a little bit, although not sure it can explain Tottenham’s failings completely. A pitch shouldn’t play havoc with positioning etc…
Redknapp didnt say that the pitch was the problem he said that psychologically it had affected the players who were more worried about what boot to wear and the strain on their bodies instead of playing football on it to the point he left some players out because their head wasnt right for it
Yeah, but really ‘Appy ‘Arry is simply throwing out a rubbish excuse for Tottenham’s evident shortcomings in order to protect his players from media scrutiny. Spurs were fortunate to avoid a complete humiliation in that first half.
As ZM says above, an artificial pitch doesn’t mess with basic positioning.
Amazing insight as always ZM, i wanted to ask what do you think Dos Santos future is at spurs? Do you see him starting in more games in the future? Maybe as ACM? Or do you think there are better players in the squad and maybe more suited to a impact sub role?
I think he’s the most talented winger there, but the fact is that Lennon has been playing excellently over the past 18 months, and Bale has been excellent since about February, so it’s difficult for Redknapp to give GDS the sustained run in the side that he needs to flourish. And then you’ve got Kranjcar…and to a lesser extent, David Bentley.
His best bet is if Redknapp comes up with a plan B formation, but otherwise I think he’s hoping for an injury to Lennon…
one problem I saw for GDS, both last night and against Man City, was that Corluka’s lack of mobility meant he never had an overlapping run outside him when he cut in from the wing. having very defensive RBs like Corluka and Kaboul is ok for right-footed Lennon, as he doesn’t tend to cut in anyway, but GDS played wide right is very predictable coming in onto his left foot if he isn’t supported by an attacking fullback. maybe Redknapp should try him on the left?
i think he’ll continue to struggle in a 4-4-2 whether he plays left or right. he’s a far better player in a 4-3-3 as one of the ‘wide’ forwards, which could have worked quite nicely with keane as the other and pavlyuchenko through the middle. quite baffling that huddlestone was left on the bench and they went with a 4-4-2
Corluka was very attacking full back before coming to Spurs. City fans were always saying he was brilliant going forward but constantly out of position (probably due to lack of pace). My guess is that he knows if the ball is lost he won’t get back in time so he stopped going forward. A good example was last night with the first of the two missed chance late in the match when Corluka was too forward, had no hope of recovering and young boys player blitzed past Dawson to set up that chance.
It might also be due to Harry’s intructions because when playing for Croatia, I’ve seen Corluka and Srna (normaly right midfielder for NT) completely switch positions during matches.
But yes, when playing with Gio on right side, Corluka should really get forward on overlap far more.
I turned the TV on, 35 minutes gone and Spurs were 3-0 down… Fantastic… I then watched for 10 minutes and Young Boys were awful. At half time I was worried Spurs would actually get a win. Didn’t see the second half and by all accounts Young boys were unlucky not to add to their total but unless they know how to defend and keep it tight they are going out at the lane. Sounds like they have a creative attacking style so hopefully they can get some goals at knock the tiny totts out.
ZM who do you think is the best of spurs four strikers defoe,keane, crouch or pavlyuchenko and what combination should they be played as a single striker with wingers such as dos santos/ bale/lennon or as a duo.
The 4 strikers are all flawed in their own way and redknapp may well bring in somebody else before the end of the transfer window.
personally i would like to see some more game time with keane playing behind pavlyuchenko.
If spurs move to 4-3-3,will bale be able to play wide left(not sure he’ll be comfortable so high up the pitch) A better option could be Dos Santos or Kranjcar. HAVE THE SAME ISSUE WITH LENNON,DON’T THINK HE’S CREATIVE ENOUGH
“Redknapp recently declared in a national newspaper that tactics weren’t particularly important in football”.
I think that is unfair. He said tactics were 10% of the game.
10% = 1 outfield player.
And indeed having 2 isolated strikers left spurs 1 man short in midfield!
Seriously he (and Ramos before him) has been looking for a striker who can play on his own, but without CL football, it has been hard to attract the right quality.
Very interesting read – thanks.
they’ve got one – pavlyuchenko’s a terrific striker, who has all the qualities to play on his own up front. but like g. dos santos, he has been poorly managed and therefore has often lacked confidence when playing for his club.
also, both are classy technical players who do not fit in with the ‘get it wide, put it in the mixer and hope the 7 foot striker heads it in or knocks it down for defoe’ mentality. it’s ironic that this approach has been pivotal in getting them into the top four, yet it might well prevent them from making the group stages.
I’d tend to disagree. Pavlyuchenko’s touch and finishing is far too inconsistant. When he is on top of his game he is brilliant, but when he isn’t he is terrible, not to mention that his tendency to shoot on sight isn’t something lone striker should do.
Klose did well in WC as a lone striker and he might be worth a punt (he’s frozen at bayern and transfer fee won’t be too much).
i’d say that inconsistency is due to him not feeling valued and supported. redknapp seems to have spent more time trying to get rid of him than showing faith in him, and that is bound to affect how any player performs.
as you say, he’s brilliant at times, which shows he has the ability – it’s the manager’s job to get consistency out of him, and i don’t think the manager’s done a very good job of that at all.
perhaps he’s just not a redknapp player, and he’d be better off elsewhere. having said that, he started on tuesday and scored a vital goal, a fantastic finish, so it will be interesting to see whether he starts against stoke, and if so, how he performs.
He was like that when he came at spurs. He was like that last season when given that run. Started excellently only to became very poor and when I watched him for Russia (2008 Euro, which I know, isn’t a large sample) he was like that.
I think that a defensive 4-1-4-1 could work well for the Spurs in such situations. Bale and Lennon would play in their usual winger role as in a 4-4-2 and Modric would have a bit more license going forward knowing that he both Palacios and Huddlestone to do the defensive work. The only big issue is the lone forward but I think that is the only way they can be successful in CL
Do you write down what’s going on as the match is progressing ZM? Do you watch the games more than once?
Just a smart arse comment in relation to Mr Redknapps recent comments about tactics and players,
Sounds to me that he would make an ideal Engalnd manager.
Maybe a piece on young boys manager is in order?
Gio is getting more playing time but hes not playing the system he plays. Or at least needs Corluka to come forward. Its a shame to see such a good player not flourish.
I appreciate that this is a tactical analysis but I think the significance of the pitch has been understated – irrespective of what the perceived reasons behind Redknapp using it as an excuse are. Clearly, Spurs were not as fluent as they had been on Saturday against City because of Young Boys’ high pressing but the pitch had a considerable impact on their collective failings too. Dawson, rarely comfortable on grass, looked ponderous and unsteady on his feet. This was crucial because much of how Spurs play is dependent on getting quick ball to the front with Dawson being the chief route of this ball. Dawson’s errant passing and Pavlyuchenko’s inability to hold the ball up had a debilitating effect on one of Tottenham’s key tactics. Bale, consistently Tottenham’s most dangerous threat in the second half of last season – and at the start of this – looked uncertain on his feet thus restricting one of Spurs’ most important attacking outlets. On numerous occasions Spurs players simply fell over because of the amount of water on the surface – Dos Santos, nominally Tottenham’s other most important attacking outlet on the night, being the player afflicted by it most. This is psychosomatic to an extent (witness the wildfire spread of panic) but it is physiological, too. It is no coincidence that things started to change when Huddlestone arrived. He exuded confidence in his passing and it had a calming effect on the rest of the team. It could be argued that this is evidence that the pitch was not the factor I have suggested it was but when you have the right-back of the home team admitting that it had given them a distinct advantage then one has to conclude that it did affect the outcome of last night’s game.
Affecting the outcome of the game and using it as an excuse to defend a poor game are two very different things. If the match was played in heavy rain, it would be affected by it, but no manager would use the excuse that it was too rainy to justify their performance. The same situation is for matches played at a different altitude whee one team would have a natural advantage.. the teams are expected to adapt and prepare for the circumstances.
“Dawson, rarely comfortable on grass”… if he can’t play on grass or artificial surface… I suggest he makes his career move to beach football as soon as possible.
So, if you were a manager of a football team in a high pressure, high profile Champions League qualifier (that you had lost) and you had to answer questions on the match to lots of people from the media, you wouldn’t mention the pitch?
Yes, and if you reread what I have written I am admitting that they are two different things. As for the match being played in heavy rain – the argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Young Boys train on that pitch every day, they play 90 minutes on it every other week. Tottenham would have needed to spend the entire summer training on their artificial surface – a different artificial surface – just to gain a fraction of the experience Young Boys have on their own, different surface. Not to mention the irrelevance of heavy rain (by the way, Young Boys watered the pitch at half time to gain an advantage when Spurs had trained on a dry surface the previous evening) or altitude to the match in question. My argument is whether the plastic pitch had a deleterous effect on Tottenham’s performance – it did. Incidentally, Spurs had two weeks to prepare for the plastic pitch since the draw was only made at the start of August so any preparation was going to be scant at best.
As for Dawson, the point remains: he can be cumbersome on grass – like many centre-halves who are there to attack the ball – he was doubly so on plastic.