Arsenal 2-3 Tottenham: Redknapp proves he is a decent tactician, even if he doesn’t want to be
The starting line-ups
An astonishing second half comeback gave Spurs their first win in this fixture since Arsene Wenger became Arsenal manager.
Arsenal brought in Laurent Koscielny in place of Johan Djourou at the back, and Denilson came in with Jack Wilshere a slight injury doubt.
Jermain Defoe was only fit enough for the bench, so Tottenham kept 4-4-1-1 with Rafael van der Vaart behind Roman Pavlyuchenko, who was chosen over Peter Crouch. Tom Huddlestone’s injury meant Jermaine Jenas started alongside Luka Modric.
Arsenal took an early lead through Samir Nasri, who turned the ball in from a tight angle after Heurelho Gomes’ mistake. It is the third time in a recent big game that Gomes has made a mistake – put this with a sending-off early on at Inter and the confusion for the Nani goal at Old Trafford.
It was also notable that the goal came from Arsenal’s right-sided player, as they had constantly threatened down that side. Nasri, Bacary Sagna and Cesc Fabregas had all got into promising positions down that side, and it was reminiscent both of Arsenal’s passing pattern last week at Everton, and of this fixture last season, where Sagna assisted two goals from right-back.
No holding player for Spurs
Their second, through Marouane Chamakh, came on the counter-attack after Tottenham found themselves exposed in front of their back four. Without Huddlestone, Jenas wasn’t playing the holding role particularly well, and Arsenal had too much space to break into without encountering a challenge.
Despite the 2-0 lead, Arsenal weren’t playing particularly sparkling football. The two goals were their only first-half efforts on target, and whilst they may have reasonably felt that keeping possession at 2-0 up was the primary objective, it was rare to see them get in behind the defence – when they did, through Chamakh, the Moroccan seemed intent to cut back towards his own goal, rather than motoring on towards Gomes.
Half time changes
The second half line-ups
The real tactical action here happened at half-time. Redknapp could have taken a few players off, but he made an astute substitution, removing Aaron Lennon and introducing Jermain Defoe as a second striker, with Rafael van der Vaart moving to the right.
The Dutchman is not famed for his defensive work or positioning (although he did put himself about today, conceding four free-kicks), and so Redknapp knew he would be weaker defensively down that side of the pitch in the second half. He was wise to ‘concede’ his right-hand side, rather than the left-hand side that Arsenal had often threatened down.
Spurs narrow
The key to Spurs’ revival was not necessarily the change of formation, but the change of positioning of the side as a whole. Spurs were much narrower, with van der Vaart inevitably drifting into the middle and Bale doing the same from the other side – indeed, it was from a right-centre position that Bale scored Spurs’ first, a similar position to where he scored from against Arsenal at White Hart Lane in April.
Spurs were passing better through midfield, finding it easier to make connections between their creative players, Modric, Bale and van der Vaart, for the simple reason that they’d converged towards each other – Spurs’ long balls to their wide players in the first half were frequently unsuccessful, and van der Vaart was better off receiving the ball to feet rather than hoping for knockdowns from Pavlyuchenko.
Inital approach unsuccessful
On that note, it’s worth considering the nature of playing a ‘big man’ knocking the ball down for another player. It’s been a favoured approach under Redknapp with Peter Crouch and Defoe, then with Crouch and van der Vaart. In the first half here, this approach was unsuccessful (with Pavlyuchenko rather than Crouch). The reason? There was no Defoe to offer a threat in behind, Arsenal could afford to field a high defensive line, and therefore a ‘big man’ knocking the ball down 30 yards from goal offers relatively little threat.
This was identical to the situation last season in this fixture -Crouch won 16 from his 19 aerial challenges, but with no Defoe (out injured) these were in a non-threatening area of the pitch. The introduction of Defoe gave Spurs height and pace, and therefore they were much more dangerous.
Redknapp the tactician?
There are those who believe that Harry Redknapp is a useless tactician with no real idea about football strategy. This myth has been propelled by Redknapp himself, who – much like Brian Clough – seems to regard being a ‘tactician’ as somewhat of an insult. In a recent column for The Sun, Redknapp said:
“You can argue about formations, tactics and systems forever, but to me football is fundamentally about the players. Whether it is 4-4-2, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, the numbers game is not the beautiful game in my opinion. It’s 10 per cent about the formation and 90 per cent about the players.”
And he’s clearly not overly concerned with shape in training – Rafael van der Vaart said this week:
“There are no long and boring speeches about tactics, like I was used to at Real Madrid. There is a board in our dressing room but Harry doesn’t write anything on it.”
But Redknapp clearly sees the game in somewhat of a tactical way – after this game, he said:
“I changed it at half-time, opened it up even more really – stuck Rafa out on the right, and brought Jermain on to give us two targets upfront.”
“In the first half I played with two wingers, and we were stretched…I’ve got a front man up there, with Rafa in behind, when we lost possession they outnumbered us in midfield and played through us and played around us, and we had to narrow it up in the second half.”
He might not use the chalkboard, but in his head Redknapp clearly sees the pitch in quite a chess-like way, even if he might not like to admit it. He’s frequently shown himself to be very good at turning situations around – he made a mistake with his initial selection against Young Boys, for example, but a first-half switch meant Tottenham turned a 3-0 into a 3-2, with two away goals, and eventually progressed into the Champions League proper.
This is backed up by the statistics so far this season. Spurs have won more games (4) from losing positions than any other side, and gained more points (13) from losing positions than any other side.
Arsenal collapse
Of course, equally we must blame Arsenal’s late collapse. The problems here seem to be mental rather than tactical, but their tendency to play so high up the pitch seems to catch them out, and they concede too many costly free-kicks. Their last defeat, against Newcastle, was thank to Andy Carroll, who headed in a Joey Barton free-kick when Arsenal committed too many fouls in the centre of the pitch. Here, Spurs’ equaliser and winner both came after unnecessary free-kicks were conceded.
A word should go, too, to William Gallas. He won 7 from 8 tackles (the most of any player), made 6 interceptions (the most of any player) and completed 24 from 24 passes (the only player with a 100% completion rate). ”I thought William Gallas was amazing today”, said Redknapp. “He lead by example…absolutely top drawer.” Gallas may have been a problem in the dressing room last season, but he was superb for Arsenal alongside the more highly-rated Thomas Vermaelen, often sweeping up behind when Vermaelen made mistakes. Arsenal’s good defensive record last season was largely because those two started the first 26 games of the season together. This season, Arsenal have used five partnerships already, and whilst today’s has been the most frequent combination in the league, throwing together two new signings and expecting them to gel straight away is a big ask – it was the second time this season that these two have conceded three goals in a home game.
Conclusion
It’s difficult to imagine a more demoralising victory for Arsenal. Losing a 2-0 lead, losing to their biggest rivals, missing the chance to go top, and having a ‘hate figure’ captaining the opposition to victory whilst being the best player on the pitch. It’s strange that Arsenal, so renowned for their ability to keep the ball, are so prone to late collapses.
Spurs weren’t fantastic – they’ve played much better football this season and not picked up results – but the belief and character they showed was excellent, as was Redknapp’s half-time shift.
Arsenal 2-3 Tottenham: Redknapp proves he is a decent tactician, even if he doesn’t want to be
Old diagrams woohoo
They were so easy to read I didn’t even notice. Guess you learnt to use Paint, then.
Hahahaha I didn’t even notice, but thanks so much for bringing them back!
Is it also a matter of you having a broader definition of “tactics” than Harry? In his article and other comments he’s stuck to formation mostly. In the sense that any formation can beat any other he’s right, and maybe that’s all he really means. Though formations that are typically problematic against certain others may require other kinds of tactical considerations to get around.
Yes. Same with Clough in this respect, who only thought of ‘tactics’ as a way to stop the opposition, in a negative Greece 2004 sense
Congrats on being able to switch back to the old diagrams. The temporary ones are frankly painful to watch.
As for the match, I thought after the introduction of Defoe, Arsenal may be better off playing a deeper defensive line, nullifying the pace of Defoe. Much has been said about the players’ champion mentality and I think tonight shows that Arsenal players are not up to it (yet). After conceding the first goal, they start to panic, passes went astray and they couldn’t control the match.
Also, Arsenal seems to have problems with teams pressing high up the pitch. It seems the players couldn’t string together the passes and returns the ball to Fabianski which gave the ball back to Spurs.
Lastly, I thought Wenger’s subtitutions (all 3 of them) did not have any impact at all. It’s merely a straight swap. What do you think ZM? Can any Arsenal sub make a greater impact?
I was slightly surprised he took off Nasri, thought Denilson could have been sacrificed for another attacking player, with Song deeper…
Great write up.
As you mention, very impressive tactical changes by Redknapp. Spurs defended narrower and deeper in the second half. van der Vaart played more centrally and (if my memory serves me correctly) a forward dropped in to further congest the middle of the pitch. Defoe and Bale’s pace provided a threat on the counter. And Redknapp allowed Clichy to be the free man for Arsenal. As is often the case, he offered very little going forward.
But my main point is about the first half. What do you think Spurs were trying to do without the ball?
They defended high up the pitch and yet applied no real pressure on the ball. van der Vart didn’t contribute defensively and Arsenal’s technical players had time to thread balls in behind. You can either sit back and soak up pressure or press high up the pitch. Do neither and you are asking for trouble.
Very sloppy, wasn’t it? I think you sum it up in your final paragraph there, it was neither here nor there. Spurs aren’t very good when they dont dictate the play
“Spurs aren’t very good when they dont dictate the play”
Perhaps this goes back to Redknapp’s philosophy – player expression takes precedence over formations and positions? Just a thought..
“Spurs aren’t very good when they dont dictate the play”
I don’t think that is true though. Just go back to the previous game in April between Spurs and Arsenal in the league for proof.
Arsenal completely dominated posession and ran the game despite Spurs playing at home. Spurs defended and played pressing counter attacking football allowing Arsenal to have the ball anywhere but their penalty area. Despite Arsenal dictating the play Spurs won that game 2-1 which was a key moment in the run in to gain 4th place.
That’s a good point, actually. Allegation retracted.
Arsenal’s problems in recent years has been that they can’t shut out teams when the occasion arises. Both Clichy and Sagna are often found wanting tactically whilst Koscielny is a quite bemusing transfer. He’s not particularly strong nor fast and often beaten to a ball.
They’ve also become very predictable in attack. This is a Spurs side who have only kept one clean sheet since the league began yet were able to shut the door on all of Arsenal’s attacks. You can argue that they still conceded two but one was rather fortuitous and the other came as the result of a counter.
and what about pathetic performances from Arshavin and Fabregas? Both think they are bigger than club and their performances are below the standard of their counterparts.
What are you talking about? Fabregas played very well.
If that was well then why he could not keep ball in 2nd half. It was his foul that leads to penalty. He alongwith Arshavin was poorest of 11 on pitch.
Nasri was the best player of match and season so far. He is the benchmark.
Apart from his assist for Nasri’s goal What he did in 2nd half, wild lunge on Jenas. He has been doing this for past 3 or 4 matches. If it was for the other team’s players against him then what would be Wenger’s reaction and what now? complete silence.
Also thought Fabregas was particularly wasteful in the final third. Nowhere near his usual standards and the mistakes in defensive areas underline how disappointing a game he had…
Fabregas wasn’t particularly great today. You could argue that he hasn’t played many games this season, had an off day or simply wasn’t able to operate because of the Jenas-Modric pairing in midfield.
Arshavin has been terribly woeful this season. On his day he is immense but he doesn’t have them very often anymore. But then I think that Wenger has to take the blame for that. He’s clearly not a LW yet he’s still shuffled out there.
Uhm.. so Spurs conceded none because of one of the goal was lucky and another was from counter? okay..
Steven is telling truth. He is not saying they conceded none but if Arsenal can dominate match in first half, how could they lose the second one completely. We have had Milan vs Liverpool match but save for 15 min period, Milan dominated the game. But Arsenal capitulated in 2nd half.
There’s quite a big difference between a 15 minute period in 120 minutes whne Liverpool scored their goals, and a 40 minute period in 90 minutes when Spurs scored theirs…
Yes there is but I was making the pt on Opal’s comment that if Arsenal can score and dictate game like in 1st half why can’t they do in 2nd half.
Clearly my point has gone over your head Opal.
The Nasri goal was very fortuitous. Gomes was always favourite to get that ball but simply bottled it when he should have put his body behind the ball. Nasri then (somehow) managed to flick the ball in from one of the narrowest angles. I don’t know whether it was a miskick, pure fluke or amazing technique but the fact is that Gomes should have been lumping the ball down the pitch instead of picking it out of his net.
Chamakh’s goal was then the result of a (well executed) counter when Tottenham were still trying to get men back into positions. Counter attacking football is so effective because you’re running at players who are out of position.
I didn’t say Arsenal scored none nor did I say their goals were pure fluke. Yet when Tottenham had all 4 defenders in position, Arsenal couldn’t find a way through. And this is against the team who has STILL only kept one clean sheet this season.
Read it whichever way you want. The simple fact is that Arsenal can’t even break down a poor Spurs defence.
Steven, I think you’re conveniently ignoring the fact that Arsenal had a few gilt-edged chances, in the first half in particular, where Spurs’ lack of midfield protection made it easy for Nasri/Chamakh to latch on to through balls.
Chamakh didn’t even shoot on a couple of occasions where he broke through. Koscielny conspired to head over in the second half too, from the sort of position that any lower league defender would easily finish. It didn’t feel to me like the kind of game where one side’s attacking play was shut out with ease.
There was plenty of space behind the Spurs defence. Assou-Ekotto and Kaboul were targeted as weak links, with some success.
I’d say that Arsenal’s failure to capitalise on Spurs’ poor defence (admittedly ravaged by injury) was not for want of creating chances. It was rather Arsenal’s failure to either convert the others they created, or to shut the game out at 2-0 for whatever reason – lack of confidence or lack of focus seem to be the arguments raised. Either approach would be standard for a league-winning team.
I felt one of the more important aspects deciding the game and making Defoe’s introduction even more effective is the nature of these teams: Arsenal like keeping possession but fail to translate that into comprehensive wins; while Spurs have had to adapt to not having a defensive midfield (and not being the dominant team in Champions League games) by producing high-energy, counter-attacking football, breaking away with Bale et al. So Spurs have become accustomed in some matches to being overrun in central midfield, and other teams – eg Bolton – have enjoyed this liberty, whereas Arsenal take it for granted. But Spurs’ attacking style is exactly the sort of football that decimates Arsenal’s comfortable possession football.
I have to say Tottenham has played the most entertaining games in the Premier League and the Champions League this season.
Arsenal clearly do not do enough defensive work either, once they lose the ball. Jonathan Wilson’s article a few weeks ago
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jonathan_wilson/09/28/arsenal.failings/index.html
highlights this failing. If they were better at pressing in midfield they would have a better chance of:
1. Stopping the linkup of Bale/Modric/VDV
2. Winning the second or third ball off a long ball
3. Avoiding having to concede free kicks in front of the penalty box.
This combined with the high line Arsenal play puts too much pressure on the back 4 and they almost HAVE to foul a lot of the time.
Also their defending at set pieces has been atrocious. Fabregas handball (as the commentator said, not his first time) and once again, no goal line defenders on free kicks. No way was Fabianski getting to that third goal, but if there was someone on the post…
Anyway, hats off to Spurs, they earned it with a good tactical adjustment. Excellent analysis again ZM.
You can’t really have someone on the post for the third goal though, you’d be playing everyone onside and forcing people on top of Fabianski…but agree with the fact they’re not great without the ball. Too much fouling.
ZM,
Your website is fantastic. Your analysis is the best on the web and is without the cumbersome luggage of traditional media outlets. You pick usually fantastic games (sorry, “matches”). I am somewhat familiar with comparisons of Gareth Bale to Ryan Giggs, (and maybe you have touched on it, I should have left a word on the Spurs-Inter matches…) but is there a more dangerous player in the PL? I began following football about 6 years ago, and started paying attention to Spurs about 4 years ago. I reluctantly watched Modric concede his spot on the left side, but for comparisons sake, who else can do what Bale does? How long can this form predictably last? What is the proper cadence for the “Taxi for Maicon!” chant?
Cheers,
Pete
For all your praise, Bale has just 1 assist in the league this season. Yes, he’s a good dribbler, fast and talented and has good crossing ability, but he’s not actually very effective. Apart from his goal, he was anonymous today.
He also has 5 goals, has drawn 27 fouls, has 29 “key passes) not the mention the constant pressure he has been putting on fullbacks on all season. Not only has he been effective but, Bale, Malouda and Nani have been the best left wingers in the Premier League this season.
Cheers Peter.
X – Bale had (up until two weeks ago, haven’t seen the stats since) created more chances than any other Prem player, so the ‘assists’ table does him down in that respect, poss with Crouch and Pav missing the chances…
I am also curious as to what constitutes a “key pass” or a chance creation. Does the subsequent attempt need to be on target?
Am of the personal belief that key chances / assists should be a seperate stat from those where a goal results (although also includes these incidents).
You can beat 4 players, give us a Cryuff turn, whip in a devilish cross straight to the feet of Peter Van Vossen who can miss with the goal gaping and not get rewarded for it on the “assist” table.
Wonder if that is the definition of a key pass?
Complete tosh
I guess this means you won’t be doing the tactics of the Portugal v Spain friendly?
Anyway good to see the old diagrams back and it’s always shocking to see teams concede a two or more goal lead.
No sorry, was ill all last week, hence only one match
Despite your praise of Redknapp’s tactical changes, I am surprised there is no criticism whatsoever that Redknapp did not indeed start a holding midfielder? I noticed it from the moment it kicked off – Modric is primarily a creative force, whereas Jenas is more of an all rounder. So with the knowledge that Fabregas and Arsenal are most dangerous inbetween banks of four, he leaves Palacios on the bench. It seems like a major error to me, and although they obviously recovered in some fashion – did they ever need to be 2-0 down?
As for the capitulation.. is Wenger untouchable from criticism as a manager? I have only heard people expressing the players threw it away. This type of thing has happened lots to Arsenal over a number of years it seems.. it is not the same 11 by any stretch, surely the finger must be appointed at Wenger soon enough? They seem to have no plan B and you won’t win anything if you can’t be practical with your strategy.
It was definitely a game of two halves, one that exposed both the strengths and weaknesses of both managers..
they have become more practical though. they signed Chamakh and have shown a greater tendency to play a direct style when necessary. I mean hell, you can’t get any more practical than 2 shots on target = 2 goals. I don’t think you can blame Wenger, and also I don’t think the central defenders were too much at fault. in the first goal Arsenal were defending 4 on 2, Clichy was beaten out on a header by Defoe, then Sagna and Denilson both failed to track Bale and he had an easy finish. the second goal was an inexplicable handball by Fabregas, and the third goal came off a free kick that was conceded because Arsenal had numbers forward (and the player beaten to the header wasn’t a defender, but rather Robin van Persie). in fact Koscielny conceding that free kick was really the only bad mistake either of the central defenders made all game. against West Brom (the other game where they conceded 3 goals), he and Squillaci played badly, I can’t dispute that, but today I think they were generally pretty good.
I think the two big factors were Chamakh’s poor decision making in one-on-one situations, and just a great second half performance by Spurs, especially van der Vaart who was involved in all three goals. another issue was that Nasri and Arshavin, who have been two of our most efficient players in attack, both had 90 minutes in midweek internationals so they were pretty much done after the first half. (of the Spurs players, Pavlyuchenko, Modric, and van der Vaart all played at least 80 minutes, and only van der Vaart was effective). the subs who replaced them did very little, except for that one good chance Walcott missed.
I think Arsene Wenger’s reactions following Tottenham’s winning goal tell a different story. Good football teams simply do not lose games when they are leading 2-0 at half-time. Arsenal have been allowing far too critical goals to be scored against them in the second half of games. Psychologically, tactically, and/or otherwise, the proverbial wheels keep falling off and, unfortunately, it looks like that tendency is costing Arsenal the league this year.
I think there’s a real argument to be made for Arsenal moving to a more-rigid, compact, bodies-behind-the-ball system. Not abandoning the formation, necessarily, but ensuring the bodies are in the right places to offer pressure in defense, in order to stop counter-attacks being launched up the center of the pitch.
To be fair, Sagna closed VdV, albeit poorly and Denilson did track Bale he just couldn’t compete for pace.
“Despite your praise of Redknapp’s tactical changes, I am surprised there is no criticism whatsoever that Redknapp did not indeed start a holding midfielder?”
Pointed it out under the first subheading, really.
But Palacios has been crap recently and Sandro isn’t up to speed, so I don’t think starting Jenas was an awful idea
Palacios has a tendency to give away free kicks in really dangerous areas.
Arsenal’s problem is not centre-half or goalkeeper. The only problem with Arsenal is that they don’t work hard enough as a team to win the ball back. This is mostly Wenger’s fault – he’s not focusing the players’ priorities correctly. Even more than Spurs, this was amply demonstrated by West Brom, who were amazed to find they had time and space on the ball.
And it’s in stark contrast to Barcelona who’s best quality, despite all the hype, is actually that they defend as a team high and hard – so when they win the ball they’re in a great position and with sufficient numbers to attack. You have to earn the right to play.
If I was Wenger I would do defensive drills for a solid month. They create plenty of chances to win games already. They just need to be less lazy and more hungry.
“equally, we must blame Arsenal’s late collapse” – no, not equally. 50% Arsenal’s wastefulness, 49.9% Arsenal’s late collapse, 0.1% tactical changes, if that. Arsenal were in complete control of the game at 0-0, 1-0, 2-0 and 2-1 – after half-time, Arsenal looked more dangerous and more dominant. To say tactical changes were such an important factor is complete myth-making.
“It’s difficult to imagine a more demoralising victory for Arsenal” – try west brom, newcastle and chelsea, those were far more demoralising. At least Arsenal were clearly the better side in this game, and should have won comfortably. It’s obviously, therefore, frustrating to lose, but it was far worse losing to chelsea when we should have got a point, as they along with Man United are in fact our biggest rivals
As for not going top, it’s completely meaningless at this stage, and brings its own pressure. As for Gallas, he’s a fantastic defender but that performance won’t make any Arsenal fan wish he was still an Arsenal player, because of his terrible character.
All in all I’m happy with the performance but worried by a collapse which was all our own doing. But a lot of encouragement should be taken, and the anger at not getting what was deserved must be used positively against villa next week
At the denial stage then.
haha brilliant, you’re an insightful one aren’t you? yes, i’m denying that redknapp’s tactics were a major factor in the turnaround, because they weren’t. and yes, i’m denying that this defeat is as painful as others, because it wasn’t. arsenal played better here, and looked more superior to tottenham, than they did in the 3-0 win last season – c’est la vie.
feel free to respond with something intelligible, if possible
“To say tactical changes were such an important factor is complete myth-making.”
Hi Steve
This is a website about tactics. It focuses upon the tactics in games. Complaining about focus on tactics on a website about tactics is like going to the New Musical Express’s end of year top 100 and complaining that it only focuses on music, when in fact there have been many quality carpets made that year.
ZM, i’m not complaining about the focus on tactics – obviously as a website about tactics that is your focus, and you’re brilliant at it – i wouldn’t read all your articles otherwise.
what i’m disagreeing with, is your claim that tactical changes were equally as significant to the outcome as arsenal’s wastefulness in the final third, suicidal tendency to turn attacking free-kicks into goals against, and inability to defend set-pieces.
saying redknapp’s tactical changes turned this match around is like a website about total football claiming that kinnear’s wimbledon vs taylor’s watford was a game won by brilliant technique and off the ball movement.
i’m not saying i mind you talking about the tactical changes that were made. but surely they are just as interesting in a hypothetical sense, and should be stated as so, without needing to falsely claim that those decisions were actually what turned things around.
if, however, you really believe that those tactical changes were responsible for the result, i’d suggest there’s a massive weight of evidence counting against you – notably the way their goals were scored and the pattern of play after half-time
@Steve
Surely the introduction of Defoe could be classed as a shrewd tactical move. Some newspapers might even say “masterstroke”.
Fully agree that Arsenal were their own worst enemy, especially Fabregas guilty of profligacy, but harsh to downplay Redknapp’s changes.
See that’s the thing; Arsenal did look superior to Tottenham – going forward. They looked completely wide open without the ball. At 2-0 up, it looked as though the game was anyone’s to win. At 2-1, it looked perfectly likely for Spurs to score another.
Amazing how Wenger has hypnotised the fans to the point where even they can’t see defence any longer.
They lost a 2-0 lead at home! Since when is that a problem with wastefulness in the final third? Since when is that a good performance?
There’s more to football than only scoring goals. Wenger doesn’t just have a blind spot – he’s only got one eye. You don’t want to spend big money on a goalkeeper? Fine. You want short, ball playing centre-halves? Fine. Then you need the whole team to defend as a unit from the front, otherwise you’re going to wide open to conceding goals too.
The current Champions Chelsea went months without conceding even one goal. That’s how you win stuff.
This actually summarises it pretty well. Chamakh does his fair share of running to close down the CBs but the rest of the team have this mentality of “oh, it’s gone past me. Let somebody else close him down”.
Watch Barca and every single player from Messi to Pedro to Xavi will close down the player when they’re in close proximity. Arsenal simply fail to do this at even the most basic level.
I’ve found the same things from Arsenal fans that Steve seems to be babbling on about. Even though the second half tactics changed the game, they’re still happy to believe that it was their own doing that lost them the match.
They did the same after the 4 consecutive defeats to Chelsea. “We had all the possession”. Yes but you didn’t score and then you conceded. Pretty easy to understand. Then they complained about their 3-1 loss to United and how they were “all over them”. True but once again counter attacking football showed that Arsenal have some significant problems defending as a unit.
Expect this until April when Arsenal aren’t in contention for another trophy. You’d think after 5 years of building themselves up to be greater than they actually are, then dropping a 2 goal lead at home to their fierce rivals in a season where they’re meant to have ‘matured’, that they would accept Wenger is utterly clueless.
But no.
I thought it was intelligible, he deduced that you are in denial, which you are.
This is the first time I don’t agree with you! I think you’ve give Redknapp too much credit that he dosen’t deserve, he made a stupid fault putting Wilson Palacios on the bench instead of Jenas. This is a mistake any good manager shouldn’t make.
In the second-half they scored from Arsenal mistakes.. but you havn’t mentiond that, instead you’ve said that:
“The two goals were their only first-half efforts on target, and whilst they may have reasonably felt that keeping possession at 2-0 up was the primary objective, it was rare to see them get in behind the defence – when they did, through Chamakh, the Moroccan seemed intent to cut back towards his own goal, rather than motoring on towards Gomes.”
You’re trying to prove your point by mention the things that supported it.
Your Friend,
Faisal Al-Sowayel
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
yeah, all the goals were scored by Arsenal mistakes, and except for the penalty (which was 100% Fabregas), multiple players were at fault for each goal. in fact I don’t think any player can be completely satisfied with his overall performance except maybe Fabianski, who I thought played very well for the third match in a row. he had one especially good moment where he clawed away a cross from right on top of a Spurs’ player’s head (and the ESPN commentator did him a great disservice by saying he “completely missed” the ball – actually he saved a goal!).
espn got the worst commentators, how shit is tommy smyth? everything he says is either wrong or so blatenly obvious he shits me up the wall
“he made a stupid fault putting Wilson Palacios on the bench instead of Jenas”
Palacios on form is a very good defensive midfielder.
But I think you have not seen Jenas or Palacios play this season to make that point.
Wilson is off form and Jenas is on form. No Spurs fan was surprised to see Jenas start ahead of Palacios today.
Redknapp is an excellent manager as Spurs results under him prove.
Agree 100% re: Palacios/Jenas
Not even Wilson’s mum could say he’s been playing well. Even for a tackling midfielder his passing has been shockingly bad. The deep defending Tottenham have favored for 8 months or so does not favor Palacios’ abilities either. You don’t need a ball-winner as much when you are very disciplined; thus the passing ability of Jenas, Huddlestone and especially Modric has seen Palacios fall out of favor.
“You’re trying to prove your point by mention the things that supported it.”
That’s the general idea…
But it’s short-sighted to simply blame the mistakes and not look at the overall pattern of the game. The mistakes weren’t there in the first half because Tottenham were barely getting into the final third and not forcing any mistakes
tactics? What tactics ? Fabregas fucked up and Arsenal went bipolar. lol
That’s brilliant, that is!
Surprised you did not mention that Clichy’s huge positioning + decision mistake cost Arsenal the first goal and in general, changed the match completely. Another huge error from Clichy, at times he can be unlucky, but today he was asking for it; why go for the header with Defoe when Defoe is awful at heading with the ball; he let Bale run into the left back position and have a free goal.
Would not be surprised if Gibbs comes into play very, very soon, Clichy isn’t rated very highly by many Arsenal fans.
clichy is just a dodgy defender, if he was good going forward it would make up for his defensive deficiencies but he is a poor dribbler & crosser so he is not effective going forward
He makes too many mistakes in defence, has too many lapses in concentration and is woefully ineffective in attack these days. In 07/08 he was good in attack and didn’t make many mistakes which countered his concentration lapses but he continually costs Arsenal points and I don’t think it will be long before Gibbs has a real chance, if he avoids injury, to take over.
This would even have the added benefit of forcing the defence to speak English so the rest of the team know what’s going on.
Arsenal have an odd problem – their fullbacks love to overlap and cross, but usually there’s only one forward. Thus, this is a low percentage offensive play that leaves them exposed with too many numbers up the pitch!
First half Arsenal won the CM battle hands down. Tottenham can look to the midfield three of Modric, Jenas, and VDV and could have expected much more.
But what really made the difference was the half time sub that gave Spurs an outlet at the front. Redknapp bringing on Defoe at half time gave Spurs some teeth up front after a toothless display from Pavyluchenko.
Defoe was lively, pacy, and aggressive, willing to fight for the ball and then use his skill once he won it. All of a sudden there was always something on ahead of the Spurs midfield and pressure across their back line.
Bravo to Redknapp also for bring on another striker when it was all square and pushing the team on for the win. Would have been much easier to settle for the draw but that is not his way.
“All the goals were scored from mistakes.” Yes, not just the Tottenham goals, but the Arsenal ones too. So if you want to look at mistakes then Arsenal made more mistakes than Tottenham, which makes Tottenham the better team today. But I agree with the summation that Tottenham had a poor first half, it’s just that Arsenal had a poorer second half, and whether it was tactics, a rousing call or just sheer luck, it’s obvious from Wenger’s bottle-throwing cot behaviour that the better manager managed to get his player’s to do what he wanted them to.
I can’t imagine how painful this must be for Arsenal fans. Lovely write-up as always.
i’ll tell you. it hurts like a paper cut – annoying for a short while, but soon got over.
and by the way the last sentence of your otherwise fascinating first paragraph doesn’t make sense. nice one
Arsenal weren’t terrible, on another day they might have got away with it, but they really threw this one away (again?). You would expect more from a side hoping to go top of the league.
P.S. Gallas played well, but I think Sagna may have had more tackles.
Haven’t seen the game, but very good write up as usual.
Agreeing with some of the posts already on here. Yes, Redknapp can be a decent tactician, even if as you say, he doesn’t like to admit it. However, playing Arsenal with no natural defensive midfielder?! What’s that all about!
In the case of Arsene Wenger, surely he’s got to go this year if Arsenal fail to win a trophy. Arsenal are a massive club, going this long without winning a trophy just isn’t good enough. Yes, Wenger argues that he’s doing well considering what he’s spent, but as United and Chelsea have proved, if you want to be the best, you have to spend big, just the way football is these days. And having said that, Nemanja Vidic, best centre half in the world, £7 million. Laurent Koscielny, £8 million. Even Squillaci cost only £2 million less and the two are worlds apart! I’m still not a big fan of Chamakh, and especially when I can’t help but compare him to Drogba/Rooney/Torres. Yes, he’s scoring some goals, but he also misses countless, and back to the Chelsea game, he missed 2/3 guilt edged chances.
I’ve said all along, I fancy United to win the league. Yes, that opinion will be argued and criticised, but it’s just what I think. Arsenal despite there faults, are still capable of winning the league. If they are though, it’s going to have to be by scoring lots of goals, because I can’t see them doing what Chelsea/United do year in year out and ground out tough 1-0 wins, the defence of Clichy (can’t defend and isn’t brilliant attacking either) and then two average defenders in Squillaci and Koscielny surely supports this. Midfield, Arsenal are on a par with Chelsea/United, sorry to keep quoting them, but it’s who Arsenal need to be compared to. Chelsea’s full strength, fully fit midfield of Mikel/Essien/Lampard is the strongest, but Song/Fabregas/Nasri is not too far behind. Focusing on Nasri, I don’t think I’m exaggarating when I say he’s becoming a world class player. He is very good on the ball, he can dribble, he gets his fair share of goals, and also he’s rarely knocked off the ball, and has admirable strength for his size. His performance again England showed how far behind in terms of technical ability and ball retention we are from the Spain’s/France’s of this world.
Nasri is indeed excellent, has been wonderful so far this season
In regards to the DM gripe, it’s been responded to above. For Spurs, Palacios is on poor form, Sandro is a bit too inexperienced for this type of match, and Hudd is injured. Jenas and Modric really were the best pairing, although Arsenal dominated the center of the pitch until Spurs started playing narrower in the second half.
“I’ve said all along, I fancy United to win the league.”
Under the mistaken impression that anyone cares whether you’ve been consistent…
“In the case of Arsene Wenger, surely he’s got to go this year if Arsenal fail to win a trophy. Arsenal are a massive club, going this long without winning a trophy just isn’t good enough.”
Typical short-sightedness, flat-out wrong on numerous levels. Before explaining, I’ll note that I come at this as someone who has no serious emotional attachment to any team, with a desire to watch enjoyable football and understand the game better.
1. A value statement for me: an offensive, intricate, passing-and-movement-based game with high-level technique is the funnest to watch. Arsenal is not the best team at it in the world, but they’ve been the most consistent in the premier leaguer since I started watching.
2. If the sport is to remain healthy financially, teams need to avoid overspending their means – there really should be better revenue-sharing and some kind of salary cap, plus the practice of selling players under contract should be stomped out, sort of along the lines of the NBA – and Arsenal is the best example of a team acting responsibly instead of incurring huge debt or depending on a sheik/oligarch/crooked politician as financial benefactor. Yet they still achieve champions league qualification annually.
3. Actual math makes the “HOW COULD THEY NOT HAVE WON SOMETHING SHINY BY NOW!!!” critique sound even more silly than it does upon initial articulation. There’s 20 teams in the EPL every year. Not all have an equal chance of winning, but to finish 3 out of 20 is not failure, unless the person judging is a complete moron with no sense of perspective.
4. Stability in managing (with the exception of Mourinho) is beneficial for clubs, while a managerial carousel is usually not, and once you start firing managers, it can be hard to stop, which gets expensive and still doesn’t help results. As Billy Beane pointed out (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/ca9c6514-3e7d-11df-a706-00144feabdc0.html#axzz161ZWE2QR), Wenger, like Warren Buffett, is thinking about success in the short and long term, trying to create an institutional structure that supports and leads to success: “Wenger runs his football club like he is going to own the club for 100 years.”
And yet, while my admiration for them remains intact, I will concede that the Arsenal games I have watched this year (against Chelsea, City and Newcastle) have not been the kind of viewing experience that led me to appreciate them so much. Clichy scares me, I can;t understand how Koscielny or Squillaci are keeping Djourou out of the XI, and the intensity of pressing is not what I would like. The way they played in the first half versus Chelsea was ideal, but things have not seems that energetic. They really don’t seem to embody the Barca-esque idea of winning the ball back ASAP with high-tempo pressing the way their 4213 formation needs them to.
Meanwhile I keep hearing good things about the type of game Blackpool, Bolton(!), Mainz, and Leverkeusen that I may have to add them to the list of teams I casually follow along with Arsenal, Milan and Villareal.
absolutely amazed that anyone’s giving tottenham any credit for this. one of the most incompetent matches you’ll ever see from two top teams. arsenal were, however, clearly better at almost every single aspect of football. anything can happen on the day but we know where both teams will be at the end of the season. or indeed tomorrow morning, next week, the week after that…
missed the second half did you?
i thought about turning it off after the first half too, but I stuck with it…
top stuff
A bit off the topic, but this is for anyone to answer.
What sort of value if any, does Roman Pavlyuchenko have?
Pav is capable of the odd decent game but his build up play in general is poor.
Pav’s good if his first touch is a shot. <- this sums his up perfectly really.
@ stu im a spurs fan and ive been wondering the same thing for the past 5 games or so. pav is slow and weak; he’s awful at positioning, moving to space, holding the ball up, dribbling, simple passing and comicly bad at tackling (dont ask me why he tries to slidetackle so much but he could have 6 or 7 red cards this season if he hadnt actually missed the entire player when he went to ground). his only positive attribute is his top of the box shot but even this is inconsistent and usually too slow in the release to be effective. also you could argue that hes a slightly better finisher than crouch but thats hardly a talking point as we all know. someone buy him please!
@frederic I’m a spurs fan too mate, and in all the matches I’ve watched, I’ve never seen Pav put in a good performance. But, because his positioning is occasionally spot on, he finds a way to score goals..
If we want to compete for league title, or make the champions league on a regular basis, Pav has got to be replaced. I was really hoping fabiano or dzeko but that seems unlikely now..
You want to see the club spend £30million on a striker? Plus wages?
I think Pav’s good value – for the money. He’s no Villa/Forlan/Torres/Drogba etc… but then we only paid, what, £13million odd?
Try and keep some perspective lad. We only just made 4th because we spent a lot of money and Liverpool have imploded and Man City were still in transition.
@Reuben
30 mil? Not at all..
I don’t think its too outrageous to spend 20 mil on a TOP class striker who can play on his own..
you bring up a very important point about wages, but from what I understand robbie keane gets paid a whole lot, and offloading a few squad players would allow the wage structure to stay intact…
I know we just made 4th, but look at our midfield. They’re brilliant, but we don’t have a hitman to put away the chances they create (besides defoe) crouch is a good option, but far too poor of a finisher, and far too slow to stretch defenses.. (not to take away from the wonderful, critical goals he’s scored.)
The club is at a crossroads. Do we want to climb the ladder and be a perennial top 4 team, challenging for titles, or will we stay a cup team? I’m not saying we can just buy a bunch of players and find success, but I watch every game, and I’m ALWAYS unsatisfied with our strikers (esp. Pav) We NEED a world class frontman if we want to progress.
Pav was 13 mil, but for that price we got a player with no pace, no ability to turn, no strength, no ability to hold up play, no aerial ability, and no dribbling ability who’s a streaky finisher at that. He gets into good positions, and scores easy goals, which cannot be underrated, but overall his performances are underwhelming at best and infuriating at worst…
We need something better.. even Bobby Zamora would be an incredible upgrade….
Like a lot of foreign strikers Pav is technically good in training scenarios but in the high tempo of the Premier League he struggles to make a mark on the game.
He does not get involved in the team play and is not prolific enough to balance it out. So much so that he looks ill suited to playing in England at all.
His best use would be as a super sub because once the game has slowed and everyone is tired and space is available his weaknesses are not so exposed.
tottenham were slightly better in the second half but only becuase the first was the second worst performance i’ve seen by any team all season after their first half against inter. it was all about arsenal going mental rather than any good play by spurs. first goal was well worked but that’s it.
doesn’t seem like you get around to watching many games if that’s the worst you’ve ever seen…
not the best performance by any means, but defending narrower and deeper against arsenal really blunted their attack..the pace of defoe also pushed arsenal’s defensive line back, or caught them out. Goals off of set pieces still count, remember that, and the reason why VDV’s free kick hit Fabregas’ hand was because it was already over the wall and on target…
arsenal had a very poor second half but you must give some credit to spurs for the adjustments they made.. defended well for the most part in the second 45, and took their chances well..
I’m with Stu — it’s not like the Arsenal back four sat on the ground and started picking daisies while Bale et al dribbled by. The only way to make a top-flight defense look bad is to actually play football and create chances. Spurs put Arsenal in bad positions in the second half based on tactical and personnel changes. Sure it took some poor Arsenal defending to concede three, but it also took Spurs putting players in positions to succeed to score three.
Part of Arsenal’s problems with creating chances comes from a lack of pace. Several times throughpasses found Chamakh or Fabregas, who could not speed past the defenders and instead had to turn around, destroying the entire momentum of attack. This was never a problem back in the days of Henry or Adebayor. Walcott should really have come on earlier, so he could have contributed to counterattacks when Spurs was behind.
Arsenal’s failure to tiki-taka the game out seems to have more to do with impatience and poor judgment than anything. There is often no need for Fabianski to hoof the ball up, but he does it anyway.
I don’t think either team played well at all, but for the mental aspect alone Spurs (and esp Gallas, who showed a lot of fortitude to play through his pain in the second half) deserved the win.
Redknapp’s problem is that he doesn’t prepare the team well before games, so Spurs always start off ridiculous, lose confidence and start hoofing out of defense, and then recover and come into the game in the second half. Part of it is mental, since we have less to lose by then and Redknapp has been forced to come up with a game plan by half-time, but part of it is a lack of prior preparation and the early wavering in poise comes along with that. Individual players show good form, including even the defenders despite the team’s lack of clean sheets, but as a team there is confusion, a lack of balance, and a lack of dominance over weaker teams in terms of performance (yes Spurs lost plenty of times against poor teams last season, but still dominated midfield like a “top four” team and created plenty of chances…this is less the case this season). Starting out with two wide wingers in Bale and Lennon, esp with Lennon’s loss of form, is a poor idea, and the ever-changing midfield (generally with no DM) gives little protection to an ever-changing back four. The loss of Dawson and King shouldn’t so drastically affect a team that had a very good defensive record last season, it’s the team as a whole that isn’t defending or controlling possession as well.
Perhaps if Spurs could find a consistent starting XI, the team will gel and start performing more consistently and controlling games. For that Redknapp needs both luck with injuries and individual form, and a clear vision for the team.
As for Arsenal, well, none of the top three have been really inspiring this season. They don’t have anything to worry about; despite roadbumps they’ve shown they can string together a compellingly solid run of victories – which is as much as Chelsea/United/City can say at this moment.
Good comment. Don’t really hear much about different managers and their different training methods but they have a huge effect on clubs these days with every team trying to get the edge over their rivals
Professor ZM, please don´t tell us that we are not gonna have the england-france and spain-portugal reviewed…both games were quite interesting from a tactical point of view.
anyone else joining me on this request?
Sorry I was il last week
ZM, how impressive would this Spurs side be if they copied the Czech Republic shape from 2004 Euro? 4-1-3-2. Huddlestone (when healthy) sitting in front of the back four, Modric in the Nedved role. VdV and Bale playing narrow on either side of the Croatian. Crouch and Defoe giving pace and height up top.
Just a ton of attacking options there and all it takes is a slight tweak from their current 4-4-2 set up. You could even stick Kranjcar in at LM and put Bale at LB to squeeze three playmakers into the lineup AND a regista in Huddlestone.
a very interesting proposal… but what about the width?
Spurs love to send in crosses for crouch to knock down, and with Bale playing narrow, and no right winger, wouldn’t all of the play go through the middle of the pitch? And say that Spurs did push their fullbacks forward, wouldn’t that just expose them at the back (assuming the Hudd drops in between the 2 CB’s as a 3rd defender)?
Just some thoughts. But I do think it would be very interesting to see.
Width would come from the fullbacks and Bale could always drift wide when the team’s in possession, ala what Seedorf does for Milan when he’s playing the left sided midfield role.
That does sound very nice
Also the Croatia side of about 07/08 would be a good template too 
arsenal had twice as many shots in the second half as in the first including some very good chances. nearly all the stats you could care to look at are remarkably close from one half to the next. the difference was simply one of ludicrous errors and sticking away chances. if koscielny’s header from 3 yards out had gone in would arsenal’s victory be because of the tactical masterstroke of bringing walcott on for nasri? this obviously changes the shape and style of the team somewhat given the differences between the way the two play. it is, however, a ludicrous suggestion but ZM has no problem suggesting spurs’s victory was due to tactical changes of a similar nature. they played more narrow because of how vdv plays naturally not any tactical instructions. bale making surging runs through the middle is hardly unusual either, he did it against arsenal last season.
i know people get very defensive about these things but it isn’t trying to have a pop or suggest that tactics are in general focused upon too much in ZMs analysis. as he says it’s a website about tactics. it is however possible to overstate the case when it comes to changes in shape effecting certain matches, this match is a prime example. insisting that everything is brought about by tactical alterations make actual cases where this does occur seem less interesting
U got a problem with tactics?
Redknapp knows well (as does anyone who has watched Spurs recently) where VDV really plays when placed on the “right”; it isn’t necessary to make explicit “tactical instructions” to make smart tactical decisions.
still missing the point that this ’smart tactical decision’ would have seen them absolutely battered if not for arsenal missing chances and cesc fabregas losing his mind. i can see i’m fighting a losing cause here so will give up but still nobody has given one possible reason how spurs ‘playing more narrow’ actually helped them achieve a result. it certainly didn’t stop the opposition dominating possession and creating chances. their goals were 1 good counter attack and set pieces. if you people really think that harry redknapp adjusting the width bar was what won spurs the game then that’s great for you though
If you read every football pundit and commentator in the media today they are all praising Redknapp for the changes he made at half time.
So if you try to claim that it was not this at all don’t be surprised to find yourself ‘fighting a losing cause’.
Redknapp is an excellent manager who often plays down his own tactical contribution but within the game he is highly respected.
But again, you can break down any game into just ‘ah this was set-piece’, ‘this was a counter-attack’ – that doesn’t mean anything, that doesn’t have any real meaning.
You can break Porto 5-0 Benfica down into “Luiz makes a mistake”, “keeper makes a mistake” – but you’d be an idiot if you think that five caveats were the only different between the sides.
The narrowness helped them bring their key players into the game (Bale and Modric were invisible in the first half but played better in the second; VDV spent the first half simply fouling, he spent the second getting a goal and two assists). You realise the free-kicks didn’t simply materialise through chance, right? They occured because Tottenham had dangerous possession in the opposition half (something that didn’t happen in the first half) and drew Arsenal into making stupid tackles
nice job being patronising but i’m still going to have to disagree i’m afraid. free kicks don’t materialise out of thin air but spurs had the exact same amount of free kicks in arsenal’s half in the second as in the first half. they could quite easily have got on the end of one in the first half (or indeed have an arsenal player forget what sport he was playing). would this be because of the fact that they were playing wider?
i can, thinking about it, accept that the right winger linking up with the left winger as in the first goal might not have happenned if they were positioned wider apart. that said, in a rapid counter attack (was it from a corner?) neither the attackers or the defenders are going to be in their general positions
bale and modric may have improved in the second half but i’m still not convinced that this was because they were playing narrower, or that this was the reason they were able to win the match. modric completed no more passes in the second half than in the first. as passing is surely his biggest asset i’m not sure he had as much of an impact as you suggested. arsenal still dominated possession and still created chances. bale’s improvement i would put down to him being such a strong runner , with great stamina, while arsenal players were lagging in the second half
i’m not suggesting that redknapp deserves no credit. he obviously installs belief in the players. on a tactical level, however, i think it was essentially an obvious change to make when two down. bring on a goalscorer and go two up top. it’s exactly what hodgson did when liverpool were down 2-0 to united. they also got back into the game. nobody would use this match as an example of his tactical acumen, however, as united went on to score again. just as arsenal could have done if they had put away 1 of the chances they were still able to work.
i’m not trying to be a twat here, i’m generally a big fan of your match write ups. i just happen to think that in this case you’re overstating the argument. god knows i don’t want you to write ad infinitum about how this match showed that arsenal are mentally fragile or how the balance of power in london has shifted (even though one of those statements may well be true.) in your review for the aforementioned united-liverpool match you say that the match essentially came down to liverpool not being able to defend against crosses. here you say that there is an equal balance between a tactical shift and arsenal shooting themselves in the foot. i would argue it was much closeto 10-90%. pedantic perhaps. maybe i am just being a twat
luke – I don’t see how you read patronising into his comments and I think you underestimate what everyone saw. But just out of interest I would like to know why you think everyone else is wrong. Because you can see if you look around that Redknapp’s half time changes are getting huge amounts of credit from every paper, tv station, radio station, pundit, journalist etc. What are they all doing wrong?
Luke: “they played more narrow because of how vdv plays naturally not any tactical instructions”
Harry Redknapp: “We needed to narrow it up in the second half…”
Besides, just because VDV naturally plays that way, it doesn’t mean that it can’t be a tactical factor. It’s like saying “Yeah there was no instructions to tell Cisse to use his pace in behind, he’s just naturally pacey”
Hello!
I’ve been reading this blogg for some time now and would like to thank you for the insights it has brought me. It’s even more fun to watch football now!
However I’ve been missing one major point in this discussion, Benoit Assou-Ekotto. The first goal by Arsenal and one break away (in the first half) denied by a mistake from the referee had one thing in common, Assou-Ekotto canceled out the offside with his awful positioning. Without such a lazy left defender in Tottenham Arsenal would hardly have left the first half two goals ahead.
Since Tottenham have one of the most offensivly gifted players on the planet in Bale shouldn’t they focus on getting a defender for their left side with more defensive skills?
I hope you can understand my point despite my lacking skills in english. As a Swede I blame it all on Sven-Göran
All the best
Fredrik
Your English is fine.
I’m not a big fan of BAE either, think he’s quite poor defensively and not fantastic going forward…
One thing BAE does offer in the absence of King, is that he is one the few defenders in the backline that picks his pass out of the back.
Gallas, Kaboul and Hutton tend to hoof it if their options down the middle are marked, while BAE tends to wait or dribbles inside to pick out Modric or Bale. He was also responsible for picking out Defoe who laid it off to VDV for the first goal.
Frustrating lack on concentration at the back when he gets his positional brain farts or when he loses the ball in dangerous positions, but smart player going forward and passing.
I think spurs are defensively weak on the left as BAE gets little support from either Bale nor the LCB kaboul.
Bale for all his attacking assets, cant tackle and just is not defensively aware. Kaboul, while putting in some great performances, is basically on the wrong side of the pitch.
Also BAE finds it hard to contribute coming forward when bale often stubbornly refuses to come inside and make a space for BAE to exploit.
This was very noticeable in the YBoys away game. BAE was then sacrificed and bale moved to lb, but the important change was kranjcar playing more narrowly and allowing the lb to attack. Bale was at horribly at fault in the first half imo.
Also contrast last season (before Bale) where BAE would take up advanced positions, and was played in by modric – playing the narrow LM role.
Individually spurs have better players than last season, but the tactics and formations worked better last year. They are conceeding goals and often struggling to score – a 5/6 place finish would be fair on the season so far.
BAE is not the problem.
BAE is inconsistent, that’s his problem. One game he’ll put in a magnificent performance (I remember one match where he put Cristiano Ronaldo in his pocket for 90 minutes) but usually he’s far too prone to costly errors. I would not say he lacks skill as a defender; I think his instincts are spot on, it’s just his maddening lack of consistency.
Amongst all the talk of Redknapp being a brilliant half time manager at turning things around, it often gets forgotten that if he’d got his team selection and tactics right at the start he wouldn’t have to be so good at half time.
Rubbish. It was the same line up that beat Inter a couple of weeks ago and Spurs have been playing that formation all season. So there was nothing wrong with the team selection and tactics. Just that the players failed to deliver first half where they did against Inter forcing Harry to take a gamble which worked very well producing three unanswered goals.
Maybe, but I’m not sure what he ‘got wrong’ here. If Huddlestone was fit he would have been playing – but Palacios has been awful for the last year, whereas Jenas is on a good run of form, so that was a fair decision…
I agree that, on this occasion, his team selection was fine and it was a lack of concentration, effort or awareness on the part of the players that saw them in the 2-0 hole. But his reputation for changing things at half time was not just built on this game. Against Young Boys and Inter away he screwed up, and “worked his magic” at half time.
I really don’t rate Jenas, and Palacios has been poor on big occasions. Huddlestone strikes a beautiful ball but his all round game is patchy. If I was looking to strengthen the Spurs team, that is where I’d start, although right back and central defence (allowing for injuries) also demand attention.
I think that’s what he tried to do with Sandro, but he’ll take time.
Superhooper – so you did not mean Redknapp got it wrong yesterday in his team selection and tactics. That was not clear from your original post. I think he got it right yesterday but the players did not deliver first half.
As good as VDV and Modric are and with Jenas there too they did not perform first half in the middle of the park. Jenas is the weak link there true but the three of them should have been able to compete ten times better than they did. Maybe a sign that we need a better DM than Palacios or Sandro can currently be.
You’re right, my first comment was misleading. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
When will Arsenal hire a defensive coach?
Song? Tactical imbecile
Denilson? Tactically naive
Wide forwards? No pressure on the ball.
When Flamini played THAT season as a central middy Arsenal truly fought for games and controlled them, including in the 4-5-1 formation with Hleb central.
Nothing has changed in three seasons.
It’s actually laughable how far Arsenal have slipped down the ladder in terms of tactical execution.
If he was such a good tactician wouldn’t he have started the game with a more solid midfield? Even I can tell going to The Emirates with a midfield of Modric, Jenas, Bale and Lennon (two out-and-out wingers) is asking for trouble. At home it’s OK but if you look at the best teams who play 4-4-2 (or something similar) they usually play one winger and one attacking full back, e.g. United: Nani and Evra – with someone like Fletcher or Park doing a job on the other side.
Still, credit to Spurs for getting back into it. I actually agree with Redknapp’s comment about football being 90% players and 10% formation. Good players read the game and know what they should be doing.
Having watched the match and reading the comments on this site, one would think that Arsenal simply collapsed in the second half and Spurs had a brilliant second half. However, this is not how I saw the match. In my opinion, Arsenal not only dominated the first half, they also dominated the second. Arsenal had chances in the second half which would have put the game beyond the reach of Tottenham and if you were to watch the match again, I can’t remember Tottenham ever threatening Arsenal goal except for the first goal and the third goal. The second goal was a penalty which should not have been conceeded at all. Arsenal lost the game because of Chamakh. He was put through on goal twice in this match yet inexplicably chose to cut back rather go for goal. I for one do not believe that the Second half perfomance of Arsenal was bad at all
In denial queue, first on the left
I can see why some are taking issue……
“Spurs were passing better through midfield, finding it easier to make connections between their creative players, Modric, Bale and van der Vaart, for the simple reason that they’d converged towards each other – Spurs’ long balls to their wide players in the first half were frequently unsuccessful, and van der Vaart was better off receiving the ball to feet rather than hoping for knockdowns from Pavlyuchenko.”
I don’t know if it was meant but this seems to imply that there was a marked improvement in Spurs midfield and a shift in the general pattern of play in the second half and there’s very little evidence to support this which is what the complaints are about and I agree with them. People mentioning this aren’t showing sour grapes or implying Tottenham were lucky.
I think the rest of the articles spot on, maybe you could have just toned down that part a bit.
PS I’m very interested that you commented on Gallas and Vermaelen’s partnership last season. It looks like your implication is that Arsenal would have won had they still been at the heart of our defense. This was my first thought after the game, but I’m a gooner and watch every game. In general Gallas and Vermaelens excellent form together last year, and the teams clear defensive decline in their absence has gone unnoticed by practically all non arsenal fans………….apart from you hey?
Wow, this article seems to have provoked quite the ding-dong!
It’s worth pointing out that this article is not titled “Redknapp proves he is a tactical genius”, nor “Redknapp proves that is a fearsome tactical innovator”. The claim that Redknapp is a “decent tactician”, in a week when the VDV interview suggested that ‘Arry might just be a well-moneyed Sunday Leaguer, is not only reasonable but timely.
Spurs were being outfought in the first half because Arsenal were pressing high, winning the ball and releasing counter-attacks from relatively advanced positions. They were able to play such a high defensive line because Spurs had only Bale with any pace to get behind. Any time Bale got the ball, Arsenal were bracketing him to ensure that he could not threaten.
Defoe’s introduction changed that: it put the Arsenal CBs under pressure from the centre for pace, which meant that they had to drop deeper, which opened up more space for VDV and Modric to do their stuff etc.
No-one here (so far as I can tell) is anointing ‘Arry as a Pantheon-level tactical mind. But the change he made worked, so give him his dues.
(Also: I find Jenas as frustrating as anyone, but Palacios has been rubbish of late, so JJ was the lesser of two evils. Sandro will be a good deputy for Huddlestone in time, but right now he is undercooked for such a crucial game.)
Just a point of fact regarding the VDV quotes about Harry and tactics.
The interview they came from was from a comedy interview which the player was joking with the presenter and not taking it seriously.
The interviewer is the dutch equivalent of Graham Norton so the interview should be taken with a big pinch of salt and not at face value like The Sun did.
I wouldn’t give any props to Redknapp concerning this victory, as it seemed to me as a complete gift from Arsenal – a impressive showing of incompetence with a significant amount of bad luck added to it. Arsenal conceded three goals out of two real chances (one of which was even missed). As I found out, Fabregas alone had as many completed passes in the opposition half of the pitch after the break as the whole Spurs team together (37 each).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/chalkboards/Ne4859n33u0O89627lt7
btw. does someone happen to have a hint for me where i can find simple stats like ball possession per team?
it’s like tactical fundamentalism – hilarious. i’m sure this is how religion started, people so determined to see things they way they want to, that they ignore the evidence in front of them.
at least someone pointed out that arsenal were at least as dominant 2nd half as they were 1st – cue customary half-wit response “but tottenham scored none in the first half and 3 in the second!”
it’s like showing a bunch of creationists the fossils, and them barking back “you’re in denial” or “what have you got against God?”. i bet wenger would be rubbing his hands with glee, his team’s catastrophic failings and tactical naivety going very much under the radar.
arry for England! i haven’t seen capello comeback from a 2-0 deficit yet (extraneous factors, like the fact capello has never been lucky enough to play against arsenal, are not to be spoken of – this is a site about tactics don’t you know!)
in theory perhaps. except that didn’t happen. it was end to end ages before crouch came on with arsenal dominating possession and creating more chances once he was on. crouch’s presence may well have led to other threats being ignored at set pieces but there’s no need to make stuff up to make it look like he had more of an impact than he did
I don’t read your blog until after I’ve written my own but I used the same conclusion for my title.
‘We’ve played better and lost’.
Gomes is not at his best but his save from Fabregas at 2-2 wipes the slate clean for me.
And that is what a top keeper does. All keepers make mistakes but some can save the game for you and Gomes has done that many times over the past two seasons.
I seem to remember he made two late saves against Arsenal last season.
But you cannot simply break a game down into “this goal was this mistake” etc. The mistakes weren’t being made in the first half because Spurs were not in the game.
Again, the site isn’t really concerned with “inability to defend set-pieces” – I’m not really sure what you’re expecting me to say in this article, about a game where a side was 2-0 down, then changed formation, then won 2-3…
I’m not sure that you saying the word ‘myth’ and ‘false’ really helps either, nothing in the article is factually incorrect in any way
The pattern of play in the second half? Arsenal didn’t have a shot on target between the second goal and the 78th minute, or something. Spurs were the better side in the second half – Arsenal’s front players did nothing, hence why they were all replaced
but i could just as equally say the mistakes weren’t being made in the first half because arsenal’s nervousness about protecting a lead wasn’t involved in the first half.
what i was expecting you to say was: – this was what redknapp did and why, but that wasn’t what really made the difference as arsenal simply handed it over on a plate. i was also hoping you might have said what wenger could do tactically to help his team hold on to a lead. if however you thought redknapp really did make the difference, then i would have expected you to back this claim like you normally do with stats and diagrams.
it’s surely not enough to just say it was 2-0, half-time changes were made, and then it was 2-3. the teams also changed ends at half-time – should we say then that that made a significant difference? i know that’s a bit facetious but do you get what i mean?
sorry when i use words like myth i don’t mean to be accusatory or whatever – i just mean you haven’t proved what you’ve claimed.
i agree that playing narrower and switching van de vaart to the right might well have made the difference, but i think in reality it didn’t. gallas’ performance certainly made a difference, and you point that out, but that’s not really tactical
The fact that Arsenal did not have a shot on goal between the second goal and the 78th minute does not mean that Arsenal were overwhelmed. I may need to be corrected, however, between the second goal and the 78th minute is a space of ten minutes. It is not surprising for teams not to shoot on goal for ten minutes in a football match. Football is not basketball in which shooting for points is the main feature of the game. My observation is that Arsenal is not a team that is fond of shooting at goal, they tend to try and work there way into the opponents box from where they make attempts on goal. When examining Arsenal pattern in light of shots on goal is in certain aspects misleading. Similarly, i recall matches involving Spain in the World Cup in which they would spend great deal of minutes without shooting on goal.
“i agree that playing narrower and switching van de vaart to the right might well have made the difference, but i think in reality it didn’t.”
The team changed their shape and played better as a result… how is that not making a difference? You can’t give credit to Arsenal for performing in the first half and then refuse to give credit to Spurs in the second half.
On a different note, Pavyluchenko was mostly terrible, again. His hold up play in the first half was atrocious. Did he win a single ball in the air? Spurs couldn’t even get out of their own half of the field, especially since Arsenal’s shape really matched up well with the two banks of four Spurs were playing in. Between that and the complete lack of effective pressing and it’s surprising Arsenal didn’t have an even larger lead.
The difference between watchin the match and watchin your own team.. You lot are tiresome, really. It’s pointless tellin Wenger how he could have retained the lead because:
1. it would be purely hypothetical, and not provable
2. you would argue well into the night against it
3. it’s Wenger’s job, not ZM’s.
“What i was expecting you to say was: – this was what redknapp did and why, but that wasn’t what really made the difference as arsenal simply handed it over on a plate.”
Would have made for a fantastic tactical analysis, that would. And I’m sure there’s probably about a thousand Gunner blogs out there parroting just that party line, but I think any objective reader can see the above article does a good job analyzing the positive impact the tactical changes had on Spurs performance; which makes sense since the impact of tactics on matches is only the point of the website. I don’t think he’s saying that Redknapp’s tactical changes were SUFFICIENT to alone win the game. But I think it’s pretty obvious that they were NECESSARY if Spurs were going to even have a chance of winning the game, and so it’s entirely appropriate for ZM to focus on that aspect of the match.
“it’s surely not enough to just say it was 2-0, half-time changes were made, and then it was 2-3. the teams also changed ends at half-time – should we say then that that made a significant difference”
Again, if this was a site focussing upon how wind direction can influence football matches…your problem seems to be that I don’t say “yeah, but th
“what i was expecting you to say was: – this was what redknapp did and why, but that wasn’t what really made the difference as arsenal simply handed it over on a plate”
There’s lot of sites and newspaper articles that will say this. You can go to them if you like, here’s one – http://ladyarse.co.uk/2010/11/arsenal-prove-once-again-that-its-all-in-their-head-by-doing-the-unthinkable/ – but the point about the site is that it’s focussing on tactics. I know you’ve said you understand this but I really don’t think you do.
Unless you want me to end each report with a “how much tactics influenced the match percentage”, I’m not sure what else I can do
Suttree,
Completely agree on Pav.
This from above: “Pav’s good if his first touch is a shot. <- this sums his up perfectly really."
Spurs have got to get a striker in January… Pav is absolutely not top 4 quality.
Agree on Pav. He was a passenger yesterday and too often he plays that way.
The midfield of Spurs is excellent and no striker can complain about the service from Modric VDV Bale Lennon Huddlestone but the forwards at Spurs fluff their lines too often.
With strikers as good as the midfield Spurs would be top of the league or there abouts.
well in effect you did put a percentage on it – you said “equally we must blame arsenal’s collapse”. so you’ve said that tottenham’s half-time changes and arsenal’s collapse had the same percentage influence on the result.
it was this claim that i was asking you to back up, and i cannot see where you have done this, other than simply stating the half-time and full-time scores. you do say at one point that free-kicks don’t happen by chance, meaning i suppose they were a result of spurs’ supposed dominance, or supposed improvement.
but in fact spurs had a series of free-kicks and corners in the first-half, which could equally have resulted in a headed goal or a hand-ball penalty. the first goal was simply nothing to do with tactical alteration either – it was scored from an arsenal free-kick, with spurs leaving bale and defoe up the pitch as they were 2-0 down and had to take a gamble.
but i think i do understand now. because you’re a website that focuses on tactics, it’s ok for you to say how important tactics were in a particular match, regardless of whether they were or were not. fair enough, it’s your website obviously, but i just found it disappointing when your other articles go into such depth to show situations in the game where tactics actually had the effects you claim
Tell them what they want to hear ZM, they’re suffering from Wenger Vision.
(for penpen and segankure): if it’s so obvious they were necessary, i only wish someone had bothered to spell it out.
because if we care to look at the evidence, spurs had many corners and some free-kicks in the first-half from which they could easily have scored in the manner they scored goals 2 and 3, and the first goal was straight from an attacking arsenal free-kick where half-time positional alterations made no difference. defoe’s pace in behind had no influence on him winning a header which we can reasonably assume pavlyuchenko would have also won.
it’s so obvious to me that arsenal’s weaknesses, including tactical weaknesses, were much more necessary to the result. that, segankure, is why i think the article should have focused on what arsenal did wrong (tactically) as opposed to what tottenham did differently. as for being tiresome, possibly the most tiresome thing of all is being told what you would say by someone else
as for towing the party line, i couldn’t care less what any other arsenal fan thinks. i just write what i believe to be the case, and i believe what i believe not because i’m blinded by my love of tactics, but because my position is supported by the evidence.
didn’t notice this. we make very similar points. really all i’m saying is that the importance of changes in shape can IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES be overstated. i’m sure both managers involved yesterday would agree with me
To an outsider, it looks like you are attempting to justify the loss to yourself by taking credit away from Tottenham, and instead laying the blame on your own side, Arsenal. It looks like your entire argument is more of a defence mechanism to handle dissapointment and nullify Tottenham’s achievement rather than anything else.
In regards to the importance of tactics, perhaps Tottenham changing it at half time, putting two up front and going for it exploited Arsenals mental frailty and weaknesses.
Finally, you can say what you like about similar numbers of freekicks in each half or the amount of shots, but those stats don’t reflect how good the opportunity was, or a dozen other variables.
The Bale goal was a more clear cut chance than anything Spurs created in the first half, and should you look, I suspect the free-kicks in the second half were in more dangerous and attacking positions.
Regardless, how about taking the loss on the chin, admitting to your opponents strengths rather than ignoring and disregarding them, and hope to hell that you destroy them next time round. Be a sport and at least acknowledge the other team.
as an insider, i can assure you that isn’t the case. like i said before, i was far more disappointed with the other home defeats – arsenal played much better in this game than they did against west brom, dominating both halves.
tottenham deserve credit for not giving up and for trying to get goals in the second half rather than just avoiding embarrassment. but from a tactical point of view, changing from one up front to two is hardly praiseworthy.
you’re right about the variables being important, but the free-kicks WERE in similar positions in either half. van de vaart had a shot from a free-kick which happened to hit the middle of the wall rather than someone’s hand – i don’t think tactical changes affected the flight of the ball. and there was at least one free-kick from further out, similar range to the third goal.
to repeat, the bale goal came directly as a result of an attacking free-kick for arsenal, where players were out of position. you’re right, this was tottenham’s best chance, but for the love of god can you please explain how the tactical changes brought it about?
so to re-cap, i have taken the loss on the chin, i acknowledge tottenham’s strengths – not giving up – but insist, with the evidence on my side, that redknapp’s tactical alterations counted for very little. which is just as reasonable to say on a tactics website as it is anywhere else – because it’s true
hey steve, you seem like an arsenal fan..
so why don’t you answer us these questions…..
how do you beat arsenal?
is it not by playing narrow and forcing them to attack through the wings?
is that not the formula that has worked for teams overwhelmed by their passing exchanges in the middle of the field like spurs were in the first half?
did making this adjustment have no outcome on the match?
this is an adjustment that has historically worked for other sides in the past (including Spurs in their title-hopes-crushing home win last year)
why would it have no effect this time?
One simple example of how tactics affected the game was the first goal.
When the strikeforce was a lone striker with pavlychenko, arsenal were able to defend higher up the pitch, as there weren’t speedy players down the center like defoe (wingers can still be handled with a high line with covering players)
As a result of defoe being brought on and the narrowing of the play, bale and vdv were both in the center to capitalize on BAE’s long ball onto defoe, who dropped deeper than pav would have done as a long striker.
Taking lennon off, and giving license to bale to come in to the center are clear tactical decisions to play more in the center than on the wings, which is where the first goal came from.
Adding a pacey striker also meant that instead of just sticking close to pav and winning aerial balls, the center backs had to be conscious through balls being played to defoe, meaning they had to either close down advancing players or pack the center to block off the through passes.
This results in CBs having to continually make positional shifts that can be taken advantage of.
The freekick leading to the second goal was a result of Modric skipping past Denilson, once he had done so, the nearest defender was 10 yards away from him and the defensive line was 10 yards from the penalty area.
In contrast, in the first half, Arsenal’s defensive line was generally 20-25 yards from the penalty area, a significantly higher line due to the lack of a pacey central striker.
As a result of the deeper defensive line, whenever players were beaten in mid field as Denilson was for the FK before the 2nd goal, the FKs tended to be central, and nearer to goal. The effect of facing an increasing amount of freekicks means you will eventually concede one, particularly pertinent in this case as Arsenal have a reputation (whether deserved or not) for conceding on set pieces, a concession you make as well.
Regardless, no coach ever plans to win more freekicks as a strategy. But they tend to result from possession in dangerous areas, so by that regard, any tactical change which results in more freekicks due to players getting into dangerous areas is a good one.
Back to your point, the change to have a defoe crouch partnership was one of the key tactical changes of the match.
Defoe headed the ball to vdv for the assist of the first goal
Modric was fouled in a dangerous position due to the deeper line the defenders had to play leaving a big gap between players, a deep line they played due to defoe’s pace.
Kaboul was free for a header due to THREE defenders running to cover crouch on the far post. Kaboul was covered by a midfielder and striker and had a far easier header to win.
By no means did these changes turn the match, but I find it strange to pin everything on
an Arsenal collapse when a more accurate picture would be a confluence of Redknapp’s switch in formation, Spur’s improvement and Arsenal’s lack of composure.
Actually, no it wasn’t.
As a neutral I was more interested in the intensity of the derby and the tactics rather than the bragging rights of each set of fans. And since this weekend I’ve found Spurs fans to overstate the tactics of Redknapp and Arsenal fans to understate the half-time change.
However, you cannot argue with what Redknapp did. Maybe it was an unintentional change but the Pavyluchenko-VDV link-up clearly wasn’t working. Bring on big man Crouch and the unbelievable pace of Defoe and suddenly Tottenham pose an attacking threat. That allowed both Bale and VDV to get involved and Arsenal began to lose their grip on the game.
they didn’t bring on crouch until the 75th minute and he did almost nothing. are you sure you watched the match?
Did nothing? The Defoe Crouch link-up was a greater threat than the Pavyluchenko one as they offered two things Arsenal couldn’t deal with; pace and height.
Once Crouch came on it was all Tottenham. You couldn’t play too deep that Crouch won aerial battles but you couldn’t play too high in case Defoe ran behind the slow Koscielny and Squillaci.