Tottenham 1-1 Chelsea: both goals from left wing
The starting line-ups
There were plenty of goalscoring chances at either end in an eventful London derby.
Harry Redknapp was without Aaron Lennon, but Gareth Bale passed a late fitness test to give width on the left. Rafael van der Vaart started with Sandro also in the side, and Ledley King at the back.
Andre Villas-Boas had David Luiz injured so started Jose Bosingwa and Branislav Ivanovic. Jon Obi Mikel started rather than Oriol Romeu, and Frank Lampard was again on the bench.
This was a classic English football game, a classic London derby – end to end, plenty of chances and the game saved in the final minute by the England captain getting his backside in the way of a goalbound shot.
Opening battle
Rather than putting Rafael van der Vaart behind Emmanuel Adebayor, Harry Redknapp played a very fluid 4-5-1 system with van der Vaart starting out on the right, and Modric in his usual left-of-centre position – there had been suggestions it would be a 4-4-1-1, with Modric out on the right.
Van der Vaart, as always, spent the game coming inside and doing whatever he wanted, rather than sticking to tactical instructions. This had both positive and negative consequences. It meant that Tottenham had a 4 v 3 in the centre of midfield so they dominated possession early on, and created a few chances. Bale often came inside to create more rotation, allowing the full-backs forward, but also stayed wide on occasion and crossed for the opening goal.
The problem with playing van der Vaart on the right, however, is that he offers no defensive protection. As he readily admits, he doesn’t like playing on the wing. “You want to play in the position where you do best,” he said after the win over Arsenal earlier this season. “But if I have to chase after an attacking full-back every time, I can’t play my own game to my best ability. Sunday was not the first time I have played out wide and I was given the freedom to move infield. But you could see from the goal I scored that my strength lies in the centre of midfield. It proves that I am more dangerous when I am close to the goal than when I play out on the wing. I do what the manager asks me to but I hope this won’t be a regular occurrence.”
He played more like a central midfielder than a right-sided midfielder:
The only surprise was that Chelsea’s goal came when van der Vaart was trying to defend (and doing so poorly) rather than him not bothering at all. Ashley Cole crossed for Daniel Sturridge at the far post, which is becoming a common method of scoring – Cole has assisted Sturridge goals against Wigan, Everton and now Tottenham.
Injuries and substitutions
A crucial factor in the game was the injury problems both sides suffered. Ivanovic had to depart before half-time, which meant that (with Luiz out and Alex effectively discarded) Villas-Boas had to push Jose Boswinga inside and play Paolo Ferreira at right-back. Ferreira actually played very well against Bale here last year, and the double right-back combination actually helped stop his charges.
Mikel also got injured, which meant Romeu came on. Again, this might have helped Chelsea – Villas-Boas probably used Mikel because he expected him to have to mark van der Vaart behind the forward, but since van der Vaart was actually playing out on the right, Chelsea’s holder was free, so Romeu’s superior distribution probably worked better.
Van der Vaart departed at half time with a hamstring strain, although it wouldn’t have been a hugely surprising tactical move considering how much Cole was getting into good positions. Roman Pavlyuchenko came on in his place, possibly with the idea that he and Adebayor could challenge Chelsea’s makeshift centre-back pairing in the air – but he had little impact.
Second half
The second half line-ups
As Redknapp conceded after the game, Chelsea had the 3 v 2 midfield advantage and dominated for long periods of the second half, although Modric did drift in from his new right-sided position to help out. Bale wasn’t 100% fit, tired quickly and threatened little.
Modric getting dragged inside meant Cole got equally as much space as in the first half, and with Juan Mata (quiet by his standards) taking Kyle Walker inside, that looked a potential danger area. The runs of Ramires from midfield were also a huge threat – his ability to get into goalscoring positions is remarkable, but his finishing is average.
The game was so open that the tactical battle was almost divorced from the events of the game, where the main chances were often from set-pieces. In the second half neither manager did anything to significantly alter the course of the match – Fernando Torres came on for Drogba but did nothing of note, and that was Chelsea’s only remaining substitution. A cameo role from Lampard would have been likely otherwise.
For his part, Redknapp kept the shape that lacked balance and was largely outplayed in the second half, even if Spurs had chances to win it. It seemed odd to persevere with the second half line-up, and substitute Niko Kranjcar, who can play anywhere in midfield, remains bizarrely underused.
Conclusion
Villas-Boas said Chelsea deserved to win, but Redknapp thought a draw was fair – probably an accurate reading: the game was reasonably evenly balanced, with Chelsea getting the better of the tactical battle over the course of the match, despite Tottenham’s bright start. Neither manager was brave enough to make a further tactical change in the second half.
The main tactical theme was the freedom given to Cole by the nature of the formation match-up. The value of that freedom was summed up by the fact he assisted the goal, and also picked up the man of the match award.
ZM is now on a Christmas break, and back on January 3rd for Man City v Liverpool. For anyone desperately short of reading material, try The Football Pantheon’s 100 Greatest Football Moments or The Blizzard. Merry Christmas!
“Van der Vaart, as always, spent the game coming inside and doing whatever he wanted, rather than sticking to tactical instructions. [...]He played more like a central midfielder than a right-sided midfielder”
So true. I posted the average position graphs from the first half, and Van der Vaart spent so much time in the centre his average position — as well as even Adebayor’s — was on top of Parker: http://t.co/PTY5SoAt
I thought the move of Bosingwa to central defence was very interesting. I can only think that Romeu/Mikel were not thought to be experienced enough to cope in the central defensive position?? Very risky move in my opinion.
The positioning of Bale throughout was very interesting as well, often the furthest forward and an aerial target. His continued development makes him a very threatening player for Tottenham and his link up play with Adebayor was excellent. Unfortunately for Van der Vaart, I think he needs to pick up his game as he is no longer a guaranteed starter in this team.
surely zm means liverpool v man city?
It was a very entertaining match. Spurs really played more of a diamond in midfield, as VDV was central. As you note, Mikel is a better man-marker than Romeu, and he succeeded in taking VDV out of the game. Ramires and Meireles were then clearly outnumbered by the Tottenham midfield, and it played out about as you’d expect.
Cole was fantastic; I almost wonder if Malouda would’ve been a good substitute for Chelsea, with Mata shifting to the center and Romeu and Ramires operating in a double pivot. The attack last season was very left-heavy, probably a good idea against Kyle Walker and whoever shaded toward the right flank.
The idea of match control is something that was discussed in ZM’s most recent Chelsea post. Though Chelsea’s passing and possession weren’t overwhelming, they felt in control for much of the middle of the game, though the last fifteen minutes were a bit wild and neither side could claim to have been in control. AVB’s tactics are still shifting, but I get the feeling that he’s finding a pretty good balance. Chelsea’s defense is light-years beyond what it was against Arsenal.
@Zach
I think you’ve missed the point about Mikel. VDV was played outside so Mikel wasn’t needed. Read again!
Spurs were obviously lob-sided even in the first half, and when VDV went off moving to a 4-4-2 meant the midfield was outnumbered. This is hardly the first time it’s happened, so where’s Harry’s tactical thinking here…?
It seemed certain when they brought on Pav that they were going to start lumping the ball up the field, which made a bit of sense at the time–Boswinga, Ferreira and Cole are all fairly weak in the air, and Adebayor, Pav and Bale are all both strong in the air and have good pace to get in behind off long balls and the resulting flicks. It seemed like a reasonable idea at the time, but the odd part to me was that it didn’t really seem like they made the expected accompanying change in style–they persisted in trying to play short out of the back and through the midfield, meaning they really felt the loss of VDV in linking up the play and giving them numbers in the midfield.
For me Harry’s substitution potentially made sense, he just didn’t get the players to play the way that they needed to, and he should have probably made a further switch when it was clear it wasn’t working, especially since Adebayor’s many close calls with seeing red made him an obvious candidate to be withdrawn.
I believe that ‘Arry’s tactical thinking was as elementary as, ‘Oh, Bosingwa’s at CB now, I’ll send the Russian lump on, yeah, he won’t like it up him.’
Crude and ineffective as it conceded the middle of the park to Chelsea and let them dominate 2nd half possession. Poor.
The paradox being that for all of Spurs good build up play in the 1st half it usually resulted in flinging in crosses instead of any precision in and around the box. With the shift to two up front these crosses would’ve been ideal but they struggled to build any play – often resulting in Pav dropping deep to display his, ahem, unique technique. In fairness, Walker made a decent fist of offering some width and Spurs had some decent chances late on.
Chelsea continue to flatter to deceive: a general lack of cohesiveness and Cech, imho, is becoming a liability.
The main issue with this match for me is that the referee made two jarring mistakes – first Cole’s handball, which significantly helped him to get the assist, and then Adebayor’s goal disallowed for God only knows what reason. I can’t escape the feeling that Chelsea got lucky getting the draw even though they also created a few chances. Putting those errors aside, I reckon that after VdV left the pitch, Tottenham struggled to get the ball into the area – Pavlyuchenko offered absolutely nothing, Bale didn’t have the space he needs and I expected a bit more from Modric.
Adebayor’s goal, without the offside call, should’ve been an intentional handball and second yellow.
Well, there certainly was no offside and from what I’ve managed to see during the replay the ball hit Adebayor’s shoulder – correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that playing the ball with your shoulder is not considered a handball.
Not offside and not a handball. And this is from an Arsenal supporter who dislikes Adebayor.
Spurs 1st half- Gallas and King worked well, both very experienced and inteligent. King did well to compete in the air with drogba, while gallas covered. The fullbacks did a good job too, getting forward and exposing the poor defensive responsibility of the chelsea wingers.
Sandro did a solid job, dealing with mata moving inside and maintaining possession excellently. Though as the free player, he could have been more creative in possession. Parker was canceled out by Meireles. Modric had tough time with ramires, and mikel, not really able to get forward enough and had a quiet first half creatively.
Van der vaart was poor, came inside far too much and played too deep, so he didnt offer any penetration and just congested the middle of the park. He helped with outmumbering the midfield, but left Cole completely free, which became the undoing of spurs.
Bale on the other hand was brilliant; making excellent runs, great delivery and became a perfect outball for Spurs when they were under pressure. He also stopped Boswinga getting forward. Adebayor used his pace well to get in behind (the achilles heel of chelsea) but otherwise wasnt great, lost out in the air too much, wasted chances and didnt hold the ball up very well.
Second half: Spurs were completely outplayed and there only chance of scoring became playing quick direct balls on the break. Walker got dragged inside as Sandro wasnt there to take care of mata. Sandro instead had to move higher up the pitch where he had a very bad game, failing to track runs from ramieres. Modric moved over to the right, where he equally as poor as van der vaart. Pavlychenko was invisible and a strange choice to bring on (Kranjcar would have been a better choice). The whole side became easier to play through and only had a tiring bale and adebayor who looked like scoring in open play, or through a good set piece.
Chelsea 1st half – Once again Terry and Ivanovic were exposed by the pacy adebayor, which resulted in spurs scoring the first goal. To have such a clear weakness needs to be sorted out, or they wont challenge for the title. Bosingwa had a tough time up against Bale and didnt really cope with him. Cole was the best player on the pitch, constantly getting forward and producing dangerous crosses, and his assit for the goal showed this well.
Mikel started but perhaps Romeu should have. Mikel did a good job covering for his team mates but wasnt really up against anyone and was poor on the ball, rarely making good passes that could get his team playing. Ramires and Meireles were busy dealing with spurs midfield and could really get forward, but they had Cole as a good outball when under pressure, so werent completely dominated.
Mata and Sturridge were poor defensively and didnt track the fullbacks in the first half, which became a big mistake as Chelsea became boxed in, with Cole having to deal with Walker getting forward once he realised mat wasnt gonna bother. Offensively, Mata was quiet and could have offered more penetration, often finding himself picked up by Sandro. Sturridge had a good game making good runs into the penalty area, and got himself into a great position for the goal. He is building a good relationship with Drogba and was thorn in Spurs side all game.
Drogba had a good game too, though was up against a good CB partnership. He had tough job in the air up against King which neither really won. But he held up the ball well and showed good movement to open up space for Sturridge. He has had to change his game this season, which he found hard at the start. But now he is devoloping a good partnership with Sturridge, similar to his partnership with Anelka when he played on the right.
Second Half – Chelsea dominated and should have won the game but for poor finishing, though Spurs threatened themselves on the break. Bale had a quieter second half and Spurs were forced to change shape which helped Chelsea dominate. Cole grew even more into the game and was a big threat down the left. Romeu came on and was much better in possession. Ramires found a lot more space and got forward to great effect, although his finishing (like all season) was very poor. Sandro was no longer tracking Mata when he came inside, so Walker had to deal with him and Cole getting forward and he looked very overloaded.
Overall, Spurs stared well and boxed chelsea in by getting there fullbacks forward, getting the ball to Bale and using Adebayors pace in behind. Spurs were forced to change shape in the second half, and they lost control in midfield giving more space to Mata, Ramires and Cole.
“Van der Vaart, as always, spent the game coming inside and doing whatever he wanted, rather than sticking to tactical instructions.”
How do you know this wasn’t tactical instructions? I never understand when people see drifting around from position as not sticking to tactical instructions.
Van der Vaart is probably the most anarchic player there is. He does the same thing, wherever he’s played.
I understand just don’t see how it’s necessarily not sticking to instructions.
I think ZM’s point is that if a player does exactly the same thing every game, then telling him to do it in this game isn’t exactly a ‘tactical instruction’. Its not a player doing as he’s instructed, so much as the intentions of the player and manager happen to have matched.
Love the idea of VdV as an anarchist
i can now see how he was deemed not needed by Mourinho
I was amused by how often he retreated deeper than Modric. I think he just wanted to get some touches.
Semantics: sounds quite consistent rather than anarchic.
Well drifting around from position could be tactical instructions NOT sprinting around with or without the ball just to get yourself involved. It’s like a centre back marching forward to the midfield to win the ball for himself. Van der Vaart abandons all the positions he takes to receive the ball and do his “own things” every single game. I won’t say that’s bad (Van de Vaart is good enough to do some good stuff of his own) but definitely blows up the tactical view of his role on the pitch.
I thought the big swing came when Pavlyuchenko replaced van de Vaart. I imagine Redknapp wanted to have two big strong forwards to compete against Chelsea’s makeshift centre back pairing. Terry could deal with one, but the other would be competing with Bosinga or Ferreira, whichever AVB played centrally. (It turned out to be Bosingwa, whose speed helped make up for his inexperience in the position).
The problem with this approach was very predictable; in reducing Spur’s midfield, Chelsea became dominant and Tottenham rarely delivered threatening balls to the front two.
Indeed, Bale and Modric came inside far too much rather than bombing down the flanks and firing in crosses so the strikers
Paulo Ferreira won this game for Chelsea.
This is my claim, let me defend it.
In the 2nd half Chelsea bossed the midfield for large swaths of time. Spurs couldn’t keep the ball. Some will say it’s because VDV was taken off or because Romeu came on. But the trend started when VDV was still on. Chelsea gradually took control of the middle around minute 25 before Romeu came on and before VDV was off.
I think it all changed when Ferreira came on. Redknapp desperately wanted to exploit him and Bosingwa, so he had his players lob balls in Bale’s direction. This immediately reduced their ability to retain possession as the tika-taka of the first 5 minutes gave way to long balls and runs by Bale (and also Adebayor, interesingly).
The stubborn forcing of the ball down the left yielded some results but it prevented Spurs from controlling the game more and keeping hold of the ball. Everytime they hoofed it to the wing, they seemed to lose it.
Then Redknapp threw on Pav no doubt in an effort to exploit the smaller Bosingwa. This too required giving up possession in order to lure Chelsea up the pitch, then lobbing balls forward, which prevented Tottenham from controlling the ball better.
So, paradoxically, it was the arrival of Chelsea’s biggest outcast on the pitch that gave them their biggest lift. It changed Spurs’ tactics and from there Chelsea were able to take advantage and press on.
The obvious counterpoint is that Chelsea didn’t actually win the game. If the offside had not been given against Gallas, or if the handball had been (harshly) called, they would have been unlucky to leave with no points.
Anyway, Modric is so much less influential from the side. If we are going to go with a three man central midfield including Modric, Parker, and Sandro – which I love, especially when we have the lead – I’d rather sacrifice VDV and go with a lone striker up top. We have both Krancar and Pienaar who can play on the right more effectively than Modric.
In general, I like the lineup we used against Stoke in the second half, sacrificing BAK, bringing in Kaboul or Bassong, and using Walker and Bale as wingbacks. It would not likely have been effective last night as Chelsea ran a 4-3-3 most of the night, exposing the flanks to the counter. But it was an alignment I’d like to see more of going forward.
I didn’t mean that quite literally, more than he won them the battle or however you wish to phrase it. It’s hard to deny that despite walking away with 1 point, Chelsea had something extra starting around minute 30/35.
“and the game saved in the final minute by the England captain getting his backside in the way of a goalbound shot.” => wasn’t Terry covering everybody, preventing the attacker from being offside ?
The biggest problem for Spurs I saw is not that they were outnumbered in midfield (Redknapp would have considered that when he made the change), but that Pavluyochenko is just not that good as a footballer. Against lesser teams when he has more time and space to shoot, he’s a good striker, but throw him on against world class opposition and his lack of pace and passing ability become a huge drag when attacking.
He got the ball a couple of times in the final third but ended up getting caught on the ball or mis-placing the pass, completely killing off the attack.
Actually, the same can be said of Adebayor. Yes, he scored thanks to Bale’s pinpoint cross, but several times he tried to run at Chelsea’s defense (even after Ivanovic left) and struggled painfully. Ade, for all his goal-scoring is the same player that left Arsenal a few years ago: tries to do a lot but just isn’t a top class all-round player. He tries to move around, to run with the ball, to play through balls even but more often than not he doesn’t succeed.
When two players that finish well but often struggle with other parts of the game are playing and their only attacking partner is Bale (no Lennon, no VDV) things just won’t click up front.
Totally agree. I would have much preferred a true winger to come on for VDV – Pienaar or Krancjar – freeing up Modric to play a more central role. With Parker and Sandro already on, Modric would have been able to play an advanced central midfield. I think that would have worked much better.
It abandons the aerial threat against the make-shift backline that Chelsea was forced into, but it matches our style of play much better.
Maybe if Michael can pour a couple of drinks in Harry, he can get some better tactical answers from him than “we had a right go,” as he said in the preview yesterday.
I think that your dead right about Ramires – he breaks into the box really well but is profligate too often.
Great post!
couple of random thoughts:
van der vaart is one of the best players at tottenham, yet he extremly unbalances the team.
tottenham desperatly need another striker, adebayor this season was a huge step in the right direction (drops deep to connect, can hold the ball, good finisher) now imagine if they had someone better
modric begs for another guy who is on the same page with him (xavi needing iniesta) (i would buy marco reus)
is sandro capable to play that new libero busquets role ?
Have to disagree. Modric doesn’t need another possession midfielder – that is not Tottenham’s game. They play direct football, opposed to possession football. I’m about to expose myself as a nearly delusional fan here, but Spurs’ acquisition of Adebayor and Parker are far better than the addition of another slight tika-taka player. Modric can handle the Xavi & Iniesta role by himself, thank you very much. Sandro is a fine midfielder, and, forgive the pedantry, but isn’t libero a term dedicated to a back line man? Adopting a possession-football team philosophy would completely undermine Tottenham’s tendency to throw 5 or 6 attacking players forward, which is entertaining, exciting, and leads to matches with several chances on goal. Further it especially suits Adebayor because the man seems to need to miss a sitter or 2 before he’s dialed in. They are above tactics
Playing the possession game further would neuter the skills and abilities of Bale and especially Lennon who are obviously the fastest, best pair of wingers in the game, and give excellent delivery.
I agree that Spurs don’t need another tiki taka player. Furthermore, the above suggestion that Reus would be the man is ridiculous. Reus is more like Van der Vaart than Modric, though he’s really neither. He’s far more direct, scores and creates goals, likes to play high up the pitch, plays on both wings, in the whole, or up front (as he has this season). Excellent dribbling, not so much a patient passer.
The suggestion though, that Bale and Lennon are the best wingers in the game is absurd, and even the idea that Lennon gives excellent delivery is surely a result of rose-tinted glasses. Bayern, Madrid, and Barca all have better pairs of wingers. Hell, Barca’s second string pair of wingers (atm Villa and Pedro, one might suppose) would beat Spurs. For Madrid, Ronaldo and Di Maria; Bayern have Robbery (as fast, better delivery, better shooting, better dribblers, decision making, creativity … do piss all defending, especially in Robben’s case, though).
Man Utd’s wingers are probably about equal too, maybe not in speed but in ability.
u both didnt get my point
i dont want a possesion player or tiki taka player, i want someone like reus or goetze fast direct but with vision and football intelligence, someone who will understand modric’s moves (it was painful to see modric trying a one-two with pavlyuchenko or switching the ball to the other side only for walker to run at two defenders like a headless chicken)
what i meant with ‘libero’ was sandro dropping back at attacks creating a back 3 with the center backs, allowing the two full backs to attack freely
i agree that adebayor and parker were GREAT signings, but look at WHY:
adebayor is finally an attacker who helps the midfield and holds the ball well and parker he connects with modric extremly well, just watch the passes between him and modders
my point is we need more players like that, i think reus would be a huge upgrade on vdv (plus he could be used on the wings as well), not buying suarez was a huge mistake
Bale is one of those guys who doesn’t “do piss all” defending. He was groomed as a LB and everything, but as it is, there’s another man in that position for THFC who has been described elsewhere as “cool as f***” on the ball. For their tactical approach to matches, Bale and Lennon are perfect. Bale’s skill on the ball is only improving. In my opinion, he could walk in to Munich’s 11 and as far as Madrid is concerned, you can’t knock out a 80mil player for a 40mil player, even if the 40mil player is the more complete football player. The statement the Bayern Madrid and Barca have better wingers is surely the result of console football rather than televised football. Do yourself a favor and watch a Spurs match. Wingers provide the width, they don’t cut inside to shoot or dribble all the hell over the place. With the objective simply to open up space for central playmaking, Lennon and Bale are the best set. It was initially a bit of fond exaggeration, but you went ahead and made me defend it.
I think Tottenham missed lennon as van der vaart didnt offer anything from the right. They also missed modric being in a deeper central position. parker and sandro are very good player but dont have modric’s ability which he uses to create quick counter attacks. In the second half modric had to keep coming central which left cole and mata with a lot of space which left walker with a lot to do sometimes and it also restrict his runs.
I was also suprised mikel started as he isnt the best under pressure and they knew tottenham would press them. Chelsea were better when romeu come on as he was better in possession.
I think one point you missed is Romeu is the difference maker in the Midfield. Is there a place you can find the stats for tackles/challenges/interceptions and/or closing players down. He is more aggressive in defending then Mikel. Often Mikel is waiting for the midfielder or attackers to run at him, but Romeu steps into the midfield to close down players and forces them wide or back if he doesnt tackle. This makes life easier for the back four, and he also forces the player into uncomfortable positions and bad touches so the second man can step in and win the ball. He is much more of a replica of Makelele then Mikel. I am a natural defender as is Romeu, but Mikel is a natural midfielder.
Missed the match, so can someone tell me how Oriol Romeu did? As a culé, I am really hoping Pep decides to buy him back to replace Keita for next season.
Chelsea wont sell him. The buy back clause has been misrepresented, it is a first option if he is up for sell not a buyback clause. He did pretty well. He has played very well all season.
That’s not true. Barcelona said on their official website that they have a buy back clause for 10M this coming summer, and 15M the next. I have no idea why Villas-Boas denied it, maybe he doesn’t actually know the details of the contract. The only way Oriol can stay at Chelsea is if he himself says no to Barcelona, which I don’t see happening, unless Chelsea go on to win the Champions League this season.
I would think the Manager would know better than Barca’s people who run their website. Just my opinion but dont you think the Manager would know, especially if he is the one who scouted and brought the kid in?
The manager says what player he wants, he doesn’t conduct the deal.
The official website was quoting Barcelona board members who were at the table, making the deal happen. They were perplexed by Villas-Boas’ words. If anything, I think AVB was just trying to keep the fans from getting angry at the thought of having to sell Oriol back.
Spurs’ tactics at the moment are effective and fun to watch but relatively fragile. As noted repeatedly elsewhere, with Bale+Lennon and Walker+Assou-Ekotto, there’s massive width, which creates space and time for Modric and VDV in the centre.
At the same time there’s no real equivalent cover for any of the four wide players, so, as we’ve seen if one is missing the whole shape is lopsided and much easier to defend against.
Equally Spurs don’t really have a plan B, or Harry is not really confident in it. Hence he’s choosing to use Sandro and stiffen the midfield, rather than using a less gifted but more natural wide player from the squad (Giovanni?).
Last night Norwich played well enough going forward but couldn’t adjust sufficiently to handle Bale, despite having only Walker to worry about on the entire right side of the field. Against more experienced PL teams Spurs would likely come up short.
awesome and a fantastic post such a great and awesome one
such a fine and a great post amazing and a fabulous one
amazing and fantastic post i really love it a lot
Curious to hear everyone’s thoughts on this:
Against Sunderland, Spurs saw some success when they switch to a 3-5-2, bringing on Bassong as a 3rd central defender, moving Bale and Walker up as wingbacks, maintaining the midfield triangle of sandro modric parker, and bringing on the shit russian to partner with adebayor.
I was really hoping to see this when vdv went off, since it is stronger down the center, and it just so happened that BAE, who is usually stellar, was having a bit of a shit match (he’d be the one sacrificed for the extra central defender)
Do you think spurs should use the 3-5-2, or similar shapes in the future?
Love the idea – what a midfield that would be. Although I’d probably have Defoe paired with Adebayor. This formation seems like it would seems the other auxiliary players could easily have a spot i.e Sandro/Parker holding and Kranjcar/VdV/Pinnear and Modric in the channels. I would just worry about speed at the back.
Is it me or are some aspects of Drogba’s play actually better than it was at his prime? He’s not as explosive as he used to be, which is to be expected, but his chest control, heading ability and perhaps most strikingly his link-up play is levels ahead.
I do not know if ZM is still following comments but it would be intersting if you compared where creative players play versus goals scored. For Example, I belive the majority of Chelsea’s goals are scored on the right and centrally because Mata is Left center or Left. When Chelsea had great wingers almost all goals were scored in the middle because it was counterattack and cross to Drogba and Lampard. I feel Mata has been a huge boost for Sturridge because of his creativity and teams shifting to stop him.
It’s an interesting point, and worth pointing out that Chelsea score a higher % of goals from their right than any other Premier League side…