Arsenal 5-2 Tottenham: Arsenal complete an amazing comeback
The starting line-ups
Tottenham went 2-0 up but then lost their shape completely and conceded five.
Arsene Wenger had something approaching his first-choice back four available. He used Tomas Rosicky in the Aaron Ramsey role in midfield, and Yossi Benayoun getting a start on the left.
Harry Redknapp picked two out-and-out strikers upfront, with Rafael van der Vaart and Aaron Lennon only on the bench and Niko Kranjcar making a surprise start on the right of midfield.
This was another ridiculously open Premier League game (and another North London derby with plenty of goals). Both back fours had poor games and Tottenham were unable to control the game at any point – even when they were playing well and 2-0 up. There were four major themes here:
(1) Tottenham play direct
This was a classic 4-3-3 v 4-4-2 match-up. In simple terms, the 4-3-3 is likely to dominate possession by virtue of having an extra man in the midfield, but the 4-4-2 can be more direct with two strikers.
That’s basically what happened early on. Tottenham played quick, direct balls towards Louis Saha and Emmanuel Adebayor, who battled with the Arsenal centre-backs. But the approach was slightly more complex than that – the two forwards drifted into wide and deep zones to split the Arsenal centre-backs and open up room for midfield runners. Kyle Walker made a clever off-the-ball run to drag Thomas Vermaelen into a poor position for the first goal, while the second came from a penalty won when Gareth Bale found space to drive into.
It was interesting that Adebayor worked the left side in particular, forcing Laurent Koscielny into difficult situations high up the pitch. As mentioned when Zlatan Ibrahimovic did the same, Kosicelny doesn’t like coming high up the pitch – he generally leaves that to Vermaelen and looks to get in covering positions.
But Arsenal’s problem was that they had no covering defender, leaving 2 v 2 at the back and telling both full-backs to push high up the pitch. This made them extremely vulnerable to quick breaks with no spare man and the full-backs not in a position to cover.
They aren’t used to having to play more conservatively at the back – this was only the second time in the Premier League this season that a side had come to the Emirates in the Premier League this season and played two upfront. The other side was Fulham, who also caused Arsenal problems and picked up a point having been 1-0 up, but at least that day Arsenal had a defensive-minded right-back in Johan Djourou to cover. (Manchester United also played two forwards, but Wayne Rooney was usually picked up by Alex Song to maintain a spare man).
(2) Arsenal pass well
Arsenal have been wider and more direct this season, and reliant upon their wide players for creativity – but this was a bit more like the Arsenal of a couple of seasons ago, with Yossi Benayoun coming inside from the left, and Rosicky moving forward from midfield without any defensive responsibilities. Those two actually played in similar positions, but this allowed them to work short passes, form triangles with van Persie or Arteta, and Benayoun drove well at the defence.
Arsenal had an extra man in this zone, of course, though Redknapp told Adebayor and Saha to drop onto the deepest Arsenal midfielder when Spurs didn’t have possession. This is one area where it works well for Arsenal to rotate their midfield trio, though – if Saha moves onto Song, then Arsenal tilt the triangle to bring Song higher up the pitch, Saha will have to move over and pick up Arteta instead. Not particularly difficult, but not natural for a centre-forward. Jermain Defoe, who was on the bench, has been very disciplined at playing this role in the past couple of years.
(3) Tottenham lack control
Tottenham were 2-0 up without playing particularly sparkling football – they just broke quickly and efficiently. At 2-0 up they were clearly in an excellent position, but they were unable to exert any kind of control upon the game, and invited pressure from Arsenal – Rosicky and van Persie both had good chances before Bacary Sagna got a goal back (and it’s important to note that the advanced positioning of the Arsenal full-backs did have positive effects despite the aforementioned problems at the back).
The second half line-ups
A side can control the game either in or out of possession – by keeping the ball and slowing the tempo, or by retreating into an organised defensive shape and soaking up pressure. Tottenham did neither – they were outnumbered in the centre and therefore unable to keep the ball. Modric’s pass completion ratio was down at 82% (compared to the usual 88%), and he couldn’t do it on his own anyway.
More surprisingly, their defensive shape wasn’t particularly good – previously against Arsenal they’ve defended well with two banks of four, but here the two wide players were particularly poor defensively, and there was also the problem with dropping a striker onto an Arsenal midfielder.
(4) Arsenal start to counter
At half-time Redknapp moved to a 4-1-4-1ish system – van der Vaart on the right in place of Kranjcar, but more significantly Saha off, and Sandro on. Tottenham lost their shape, became increasingly narrow and their gameplan was confused – it wasn’t clear whether they were trying to see more of the ball in the centre, or continue their direct attacking.
Either way, they gradually started to become very vulnerable to Arsenal counter-attacks. Rosicky got the third when Tottenham found six players ahead of the ball – Sandro wasn’t sitting as he was meant to, and Parker was now higher up – and Arsenal worked a 5 v 4 for the goal.
Then Walcott became involved in the game. Having been poor in the first half, he suddenly became excellent midway through the second half. But there was good logic to that – he’d been anonymous when Tottenham sat deep, he became useful when Tottenham pushed up and left space in behind. The away side’s offside trap was poor, and Walcott had the pace to take full advantage on two occasions.
Conclusion
On the face of it, this was a game that defied logic with how open it was…yet there were some fairly logical factors that contributed to the scoreline. In the first half, Arsenal left 2 v 2 at the back and were weak at the back, but dominated the midfield battle 3 v 2 and built pressure.
Redknapp’s changes at half time didn’t have the effect they did in this fixture last season, and in the second half Tottenham were extremely poor – lacking structure at the back and with no ideas going forward.
An unbelievable game, so thanks for making sense of it!
Carling cup half time reading:)
Michael, you should seriously think about going on TV or something! Your analysis always make more sense than anything I’ve ever seen come out of the mouths of those so-called ‘pundits’ on TV!
Well written once again! Oh and NORTH LONDON IS RED!!
I’m glad you could make sense of what the Spurs formation was meant to be in the second half because watching it I didn’t have a clue. It just looked like 5 midfielders running around the park offering nothing useful offensively or defensively.
I think an interesting tactical feature was how deep Song dropped in the first half – it often looked like Arsenal were playing a back three – especially with Sanga and Gibbs pushed so far up the pitch.
I don’t think that Tottenham were particularly good value for their lead – they relied on Arsenal to make 1 silly defensive error and questionable penalty. Once Arsenal had settled there was no clear advantage that Spurs gained in the final third by having 2 centre forwards.
Also important was how high up the pitch Arsenal pressed – which is unusual this season. Also Van Persie played deeper than he usually does this season.
Once again, Redknapp is shown to be tactically inept.
Wenger for England! Wenger for England!
More seriously, it’s nice to see Benayoun doing well – I’ve always liked him. Spurs have been wonderful entertainment for this last couple of seasons – I suppose they just have to accept the odd beating. But shipping five: oof. Anyway, the Curse of Arshavin has clearly been lifted.
Yeah he had a very good game along with Rosicky, though I think the vital component was Van persie dropping deep and arsenal not being as direct. TBF to Arshavin, he might have had a good game playing in Benayoun’s position and having more players to combine with.
One game does not show anyone to be tactically inept. Does the world cup make Capello so?
That/s probably why he wrote “Once again”, to indicate that he wasn’t talking about just one game.
Ohhh……. snap!
When I saw the scoreline (especially having been 2-0 up), I too thought Redknapp had effectively self-sabotaged his chance of getting the England job…but then I remembered his main challenger for the position is Stuart Pearce.
p.s. @Zonal Marking, any chance of a speculative article on how England might line-up in future, depending on who gets the England job? I remember one of the broadsheets did something similar before McLaren, speculating on how Big Phil, Mourinho, O’Neill and McLaren might send their team out, and it was interesting if I recall correctly.
Why on Earth does Redknapp play van der Vaart wide or Bale on the right? Neither has ever produced anything from these positions. Redknapp would be a very good fit for England (and I mean that in a bad way).
Van der Vaart- the fart! He is a very good player, but he should at least know how to play the wing position even if it’s not his best position because he will be required to play there for tactical reason. Come on, a lot of quality CAMs are comfortable to play on the wing too- Ozil, Kaka, Mata, Iniesta, Sneijder, Rosiscky, Nasri, Silva..
He should have basic understanding of the wing position. If not, it’s not his manager’s fault. He is then a very limited player tactically. You can’t afford to be that when you are playing at the highest level.
Its not like Spurs played to his strengths tho, the ball kept being played direct to adebayor and Bale, rather than through midfield where VDV could get on the ball. He should have played more centrally behind Adebayor, with Lennon coming on the right wing and no sandro. Redknapp needed to be more attacking in the second half to win this!
But it’s his manager’s fault that he’s not using his players right. The goal is to give his own team the best chance to win, not to use the players out of position just to fit them into a formation.
I must be missing something… how does a 4-3-3 outnumber a 4-4-2 in midfield?
In central midfield. If you look at it like it happens in a game, the two wide-midfielders in a 4-4-2 are picked up by the opposing fullbacks. Then you have 3 central midfielders against 2 central midfielders. In Germany a lot of the time the lineup of a team playing 4-4-2 is written with the two central midfielders first, and then the two wingers. For example. Friedel; Walker, Kaboul, King, Assou-Ekotto; Parker, Modric; Kranjcar, Bale; Saha, Adebayor. Arsenal were Szczesny; Sagna, Koscielny, Vermaelen, Gibbs; Song, Arteta, Rosicky; Walcott, Van Persie, Benayoun. So with the wide players in a separate zone, the central midfielders are Parker and Modric against Song, Arteta, and Rosicky.
basically cos the 433 can easily turn into a 451 and dominate midfield.
“Either way, they gradually started to become very vulnerable to Arsenal counter-attacks. Rosicky got the third when Tottenham found six players ahead of the ball.”
But that doesn’t mean Spurs were throwing bodies forward either. It was a wonderful move by Arsenal, especially Rosiscky for the third goal- so please give credit where it’s due. After that, it seemed somehow Spurs just gave it up and stopped defending.
I can’t see how Redknapp is to be blamed for this defeat in any way. He was logical to add an extra man to make up the numbers and provide some steel in midfield, in the form of a tackler like Sandro- it was important to disrupt Arsenal’s passing rhythm.
It was evident that both of Arsenal’s goals in the first half came when Spurs sat too deep and invited pressure. That’s why he might have insisted on playing a relatively higher line in the 2nd half.
Now all of this didn’t work at all, because his players turned in a terrible performance!
Either Redknapp got his 2nd half tactics wrong or his players were utterly clueless in carrying out his plan.
If it’s the former then that’s his fault, if the latter then it’s the fault of his players and training ground coaches.
There was no shape to Tottenham’s midfield in the 2nd half – ZM’s formation picture is rather generous because they were all over the place. Sandro as the highest player in midfield trio? Madness – yet it happened all the time (almost as though Harry told him to “just run around”). Bale and VdV were far too narrow, it was like Spurs forgot what their team is actually best at doing – no width, hardly any pacey counter-attacks, so much space between the lines it was crazy and no support for the striker.
Modric should have told to help out more defensively, VDV was just a like for like replacement for Kranjcar – needed Lennon, and Bale was told to play more narrow which clearly backfired. Redknapp got his decisions wrong in the second half, simple as that.
Re SECOND HALF:
SUBS: Lennon for Kranjcar / Sandro for Saha
I think Sandro and Parker should have been the holding midfielders, with Modric pushing further up. He played far too deeply, where he he cannot hurt anyone. I agree that we needed Lennon and Bale playing their normal positions, with Adebayor the central striker. Modric just sitting behind Adebayor, but roaming left and right, and as I said, Parker and Sandro holding.
So; 4-2-1-3 Walker Kaboul King Ekotto / Sandro Parker / Modric / Lennon Adebayor Bale. With Van der Vaart to come on for Modric possibly at some later stage.
Welcome to the world of results-oriented analysis (I’m not pointing the finger at ZM).
Make changes at half-time and win (Spurs last year) = tactical genius
Make changes at half-time and lose (Spurs this year) = doesn’t know what he’s doing
Probabilistically the changes might have been good or bad, but you can’t tell with a sample size of one.
It’s not ‘results orientated’ to say that Redknapp/Spurs got the 2nd half badly wrong. You could call it ‘performance orientated’, because instead of competing and offering a consistent threat going forward like they did in the 1st half the Spurs midfield was a complete mess and they failed to seriously threaten Arsenal.
As I said before, the ZM formation picture is overly generous to 2nd half Spurs, they had no shape whatsoever and Arsenal had so much space between the lines to pass the ball, while Spurs were completely nackered by 75th minute because their entire game-plan seemed to be just ‘run about a lot’.
So I guess we should never talk about tactics then, since there’s never much you can say from a sample size of one.
PJ, you’re going a bit OTT here. Suppose manager x decided to put out a team with three centre backs against MU, all told to man-mark Wayne Rooney. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that that would be a very bad idea, because while it would -probably- have the positive effect of keeping Rooney off the score sheet, it would also -probably- let Valencia and Nani score 4 each. Not that I’ve done a peer-reviewed scientific study on the effects of three centre backs marking one deep lying forward (the sample size of which would AFAIK be 0), but I’m quite sure I don’t need to.
And I’m going out on a limb to suggest that nobody here is “results-oriented” enough in the way you seem to suggest that, in the off chance MU actually lost, they would argue that having three centre-backs mark Rooney was actually an inspired decision. Imagine the general verdict would be “manager x is very lucky”.
Arsenal – Really exciting game, with a win that Arsenal really needed.
In defense, the CB partnership of Verm and Kol seemed quite unsettled by the spurs front two in the first half. Though I actually thought the partnership was well balanced and any other set of CB’s probably would have done a lot worse for Arsenal. The fullbacks got forward really well, both exploiting some poor tracking back by the Spurs wingers. Sagna was actually tracked by Bale well at first, but as the game grew on, sagna was left free more and more. This was important as both players ended up free fro their goals. Gibbs had a lot of space ahead of him as Kranjcar moved inside, but had Walker to watch out for, so didnt have as big an impact.
In midfield, they played very well to dominate the game. The midfield switched around in position, but looked at its best when Arteta was the deepest CM, as he could find space to dominate the game. He was fantastic, distributing the ball excellently and and able to escape the attentions of Saha/Adebayor. Song also did a good job in possession (an aspect of his game he has really improved this season) and helped Arsenal dominate the game. But defensively he didn’t press modric well enough at times and this allowed Spurs to get the ball forward well at times. Rosicky had a tough time against a tough opponent in Parker, but was able to outfox him with Benayoun moving inside to help double up on him and play around Parker. These two showed excellent close control and great drive from inner midfield.
While Benayoun moved inside, Walcott stayed higher up the pitch and kept better width, but was rarely in the game until he Spurs were forced to move up the pitch and left space for him to exploit. Walcott is may not do well against deep teams, but when given space he can be deadly.
Van persie drifted to the left well to combine with Rosicky and Benayoun, and it reminded me of how they used to play with Nasri and Fabregas, which they have very much dropped this season. Maybe this result will change their minds on whether to drop that approach all together. Van persie moving to the left created space for Walcott as well, who found lots of space to score twice in the second half.
Overall, Arsenal controlled the game in midfield with Song and Arteta (who were rarely pressed or marked), had good creativity and goal threat in Rosicky, Benayoun and Van persie and had good penetration in Sagna from fullback and then Walcott later in the game when give more space in behind. Credit should go to Wenger, who picked his side well and had faith in his players – Benayoun and Rosicky instead of Ramsey and Oxe was an inspired decision today.
Benayoun and Rosicky instead of Ramsey and Oxe was an inspired decision today.
Wenger may get it wrong sometimes but you cant argue about the mans tactical nous inspired today.
See my above point on results-oriented thinking. Jeeeeeeeeezus.
I think we should judge a manager’s ability entirely on the quality of his press conferences and how many transfer rumours he generates.
It would do away with this nasty business of having to think about how their teams perform in actual games of football.
Rosicky has been playing well for a while now and should have been ahead of Ramsey for the AC Milan tie. Ramsey is a good player and looked pretty good at the start of the season, but has looked really tired recently and probably needs a little bit of time to recover.
Ramsey is apparently injured and will be out for a few weeks… Luckily Diaby is on the mend!
LOL
I think one important factor in Arsenal’s comeback was the bookings received by Tottenham’s midfield duo of Modric and Parker, and – soon after he came on – Sandro. I don’t have the stats at hand but I do believe this gave the Arsenal midfield the upper hand and they started to press better and win more 50-50s thereon.
i think redknapp did the right thing by bringing on sandro and vandervaart. but rosicky got the third goal at the right time, which just killed spurs off mentally.
it became easy after that. they were set out to keep things tight, but they can’t because they need to attack to get something out of the game. so they didnt know what to do.
also, the high pressing from arsenal worked wonders, gifting walcott 2 goals. maybe other premiership teams will take note, because today’s game shows that if you go for it, the spurs players are just going to crack.
Spurs – Never had control of the game.
In defense, Kaboul and King let Van persie drop deep and concentrated on defending anything that came there way. This meant Arsenal rarely had players in the penalty area for crosses, but did have an extra man in build up play with Van persie unmarked. At the end of the first half this approach was shown for its flaws as , first Sagna ghosted in from RB unmarked, then Van persie picked up the ball on the edge of the penalty area and curled the ball in for an equalizer. At LB, BAE handled Walcott excellently though it meant he couldn’t get forward himself and couldn’t handle Sagna getting forward. At RB, Walker was excellent getting forward, taking advantage of benayoun moving inside, though with Kranjcar doing the same it meant him and Gibbs were in direct competition. Both were key in their teams first goals, but then didnt have as much impact.
In midfield, Parker was overloaded with Rosicky, Beneyoun and Van persie creating a triangle around him – this has happened with Parker before and seems a clear weakness in the spurs midfield where teams can single out parker and overload his area. Modric didn’t do enough to help out his team mate and didnt really press forward either, it was hard to see what he was doing defensively. Offensively on the other hand, he was only spurs player trying to keep the ball with any patience, and was the only outball for the spurs defense in the first half as most counter attacks went through him.
Outwide, we saw a similar shape to Arsenal – one player move inside and the other stay wide. Kranjcar was the player who joined the midfield but he didnt have the same impact as Rosicky who had the option of Rosicky and Van persie to combine with. Instead he was rarely used as the ball went directly to Bale or the two strikers, it was easy to see why he came off at half time. Bale on the left had more of an effect in the first half, looking to break against sagna whenever he was caught high up the pitch (though song did a good job of covering) and managed to win his side a penalty. But he was weak defensively, and looking at the impact Sagna had on the game, the blame must go to Bale for not tracking back.
Up front, Adebayor and Saha both managed to get a goal each and gave the Arsenal CB’s a rough time, pressing well and looking to catch them out on the break. But neither dropped deep well at all, which is key when fielding two strikers and not wanting to be outnumbered in midfield. It meant Arsenal could dominate possession and also meant there wasnt much of a connection between midfield and attack.
In the second half, Spurs tried to change things around to gain more control, but ended up losing the game. The defense pushed up to try and deal with Van Persie, but it didnt work and just gave more space in behind for Walcott to expose. The CB’s were also guilty of being dragged around by Van Persie to the left, which meant more space for Walcott on the right (which was an old trick of Arsenal last season, when they had Fab who could play those accurate balls for Walcott). They also changed around the midfield. First they added Sandro into midfield to play as the holding player, but it still meant him and Parker were outnumbered by Rosicky, Benayoun and Van persie, so couldnt get a grip on possession and had less options with there direct attack. Modric now also had more responsibility to get forward and make sure Adebayor wasn’t isolated, but he has always been poor when asked to play this role and much prefers deeper positions. Van de Vaart came on for Kranjcar but didnt have any bigger impact, while Bale surprisingly played more narrow, which meant he tracked back even less and wasnt as much of a threat. A strange decision. Adebayor actually did a good shift as the sole striker, but wasnt given enough support at all.
Overall, Spurs went ahead through quick direct breaks from Walker and Bale and good finishes by Adebayor and Saha, but could compete in midfield and let the Arsenal fullbacks go free. Redknapp tried to fix the first problem by adding Sandro and VDV; but neither helped solve the problem as they still needed Modric to help out more in deep midfield and VDV was bypassed with the more direct attacks. The second problem, Redknapp didnt even try to solve, as VDV was never gonna track back and Bale was moved into an even more narrow position making him less likely to track back.
SO arsenal won the game by getting their fullbacks forward and dropping Van Persie into deep positions. This showed as Van Persie and Sagna were arsenals best players.
My blog http://economicinterest.wordpress.com/ give it a read of your interested, should be doing another football based story in the next few days.
Hello Kane.
I cannot recall Gibbs, Sagna (except for him being in the area for his headed goal) or Kyle Walker bombing forward at all in the game. I cannot recall one cross from any of the full backs. The only full back who got forward was Ekotto, and he was severely punished on one of the Walcott goals. I don’t remember where he was for the other Walcott goal, but I think he was also out of position on that one as well.
The reason Arsenal won in my opinion is their superb pressing, their accurate passing, their two central defenders (after a shaky start), Van Persie’s brilliant equaliser and impressive overall performance (I think we possibly culd have lived with Sagna’s goal?), a poor second half tactical change by Harry at the start of the second half (see my reply to your comments yesterday), subdued performances from Spurs players, esp. Bale and Walker, Adebayor’s inability to win anything in the air, or make the ball stick, he has an awful first touch, Walcott’s strong second half performance, aided and abetted by Ekotto, no left-wing cover (Bale playing narrow), Modric too deep, he should be much further up the pitch causing damage (Harry’s fault or is he starting to think about Chelsea next season and £100,000 a week?) and finally masses of space in midfield with Sandro and Parker inexplicably pushing too far forward.
I think if Gervinho had played (Wenger thought he was too tired) it might have been far worse for Spurs. There are more reasons but as a Spurs supporter I am too annoyed and depressed to continue.
They will have to sort out their game for the matches against the big teams. Chelsea and Man Utd very important now for the Champions League places.
Sagna got forward throughout the game, he got a goal and an assist and was one the best players for Arsenal. He didnt attempt many crosses, but then there was no point, Van persie was dropping deep (i’ll get back to that) but he helped give width and double up on BAE. Gibbs wasnt able to be as effective as Walker pretty much had only him to deal with, while BAE had Sagna and Walcott. Walker got forward a lot in the first half, it was his charge forward with the ball the off the ball run that created spurs first goal.
BAE wasnt really that much at fault for Walcotts goals, when spurs defended deep he kept him in check, it was only when spurs had to play higher up the pitch, that walcott could start making runs in behind. Even then he was making central runs to take advantage of Van persie pulling Kaboul out of position and being able to run with pace at King (not ideal). So really King and Kaboul were at fault.
Arsenal were the better side because a) song and Arteta were allowed lots of time and space to keep possession and b) rosicky, Benayoun and Van persie could create a triangle around Parker and then Parker and sandro. The key was van persie dropping deep, which he hasnt actually done much this season (usually staying higher up in goal scoring positions).
You were right about Modric, in the second half he needed to be a better link between midfield and attack, but stayed too deep. While VDV was just bypassed most of the time, waste of a sub.
Yes you’re right about Sagna. I looked at parts of the game last night and the more you look the more you see.I have to admit I was concentrating more at Spurs’ faults rather than Arsenal’s attributes.
I also agree Ekotto wasn’t at fault for Walcott’s second goal. Walcott drifted in to the right middle of the pitch and a fine pass from Alex Song cut Ledley King out of the game completely, so I wouldn’t blame anyone for that goal.
Walcott’s first goal was down to Ekotto I feel. They were both deep in Arsenal’s half and Ekotto just didn’t track him, either because of tiredness, but probably the fact he cannot outpace Walcott. Nevertheless had he gone earlier to get back, I think Walcott would not have had it so easy. Also, Ekotto could have called to Parker, who was near Walcott but looking at Van Persie. I think King could have let Kaboul deal directly with Van Persie and maybe held the middle to also cover Walcott’s run.
As for Saha’s goal for Spurs, although Walker’s run definitely helped, I think Vermaelen should have stayed in the middle and not have taken Adebayor on as Koscielny was also on that side of the pitch. This caused a huge gap in the middle for Saha to take advantage of, and although through he still had a lot to do. Vermaelen recovered well, and he and Gibbs had Saha quite well covered, but a lucky deflection and it’s 1-0 to Spurs.
It’s great to analyse games but fortunately players are human beings and their errors and misjudgements are what makes football so unpredictable and great. It makes the managers frustrated and depressed, but it would be regimented and predictable like chess if robots were playing.
Play the same game tomorrow, same teams, same formations – And Arsenal will LOSE 5-2!
Wenger needs to go
go to http://www.betfair.com they have a forum for people like you,HTH
1. No, you’re wrong.
2. ZM is not the place for this type of discussion.
you ain’t wrong, more chances of Arsenal repeating their defensive errors than Spurs totally failing to defend.. in a re-match.. that is what they have been doing for a couple of seasons now…
TYPO–You said “Gareth Bale found space to drive into.” you meant dive. must have hit the R by mistake.
LOL — I was just about to post the same thing
Couldnt understand why Mr Redknapp didnt go like for like from the start.
The game at WHL was a lucky win for Tottenham, Arsenal controled vast parts of the match
and when Sagna broke his leg at 1-1 Spurs scored from the right.
Even at 0-2 today Arsenal were in control of the match as Harry said afterwards.
When i heard the Arsenal starting lineup i was very worried about Lennon v Benayoun match up,Thank god we never saw that and in i dont think VDV coming on instead of lennon helped Spurs in any shape or form.
Many Spurs fans are have not been happy with harrys tactics this season and after today
they will not be any more convinced of the mans tactical ability.
England be careful of what you wish for.
Spurs just don’t play well without Lennon. It’s that simple. It means all the threat comes from Bale and it’s too easy to defend. That’s why HR wants Edin Hazard.
I thought Kaboul and King were poor yesterday. Arsenal shouldn’t have gotten back into it, once they did there was no going back.
really arsenal should never have been out of it. The deflection for the first goal was extremely fortunate for Tottenham, and the penalty call for the second was iffy at best.
as for getting back into it, i think the contrasting high quality of the first 3 arsenal goals – a really commanding header, a fantastic curling shot from deep, and an unstoppable give-n-go stemming from a driving midfield – demonstrate clearly that the fight back was well deserved. No whiff of superpipo accidentally stumbling into Pirlo’s free kick or anything like that…
You are spot on about a couple of things:
1. Arsenal played a more similar style to years past with the fullbacks playing very high up the pitch and compressing the space much more. I think this is down to having fullbacks with pace along with two pacey central defenders with the ability to cover a lot of ground. Arsene, I think, has adopted his style to his personnel this season, knowing that Mert. cannot cover back very well due to lack of pace. As in years past, Arsenal conceded goals from clinical counterattacking moves from all the space in behind. This played out exactly like the Man U and Chelsea games of years past.
2. Despite being down 2-0, Arsenal were playing very well and had at least 2-3 very good scoring opportunities. The movement of Rosicky, Benayoun, Walcott and Van Persie was nuanced and not predictable. Tottenham was not tracking runners well and leaving lots of gaps for the fullbacks and late arriving midfielders to play into. Despite OX’s talent, I think Wenger went with Benayoun because of his intelligence in movement. Arsenal’s attack had become very predictable in the last few weeks and having a more fluid front 4 really helped here.
Finally, I think that Arsenal were very energetic and sharper in midfield than they have looked since early in the season. This is where their lack of quality and depth in midfield has hurt them this season. Wenger doesn’t have backups for Song/Arteta that he can trust so those players have been logging serious miles. Today they were rested and were very sharp in winning the ball back high up the pitch. Tottenham played much of the game under siege and never looked like they could find the outball for long stretches. This is down to a very active game by the two deeper lying midfielders.
What is it with London derbys beeing so Damn exciting
I think the use of proper (first choice) full backs was a big help to Arsenal, since without the overlaps they provide the wingplay a 4-3-3 / 4-2-3-1 relies on doesnt really function properly. On a side note, since Arsenal for a time were short on full backs I would of thought a switch to 3 centrebacks with 2 wingbacks would have been a more appropriate system, since they weren’t too short on wingers.
Michael–thanks for the great analysis. I might have missed it if you did a similar post at another time, but would love your thoughts on what Bale’s roaming does to Spurs’ shape. In your picture, he’s on the left, but from what I could tell watching the match was on the right for long spells in the second half. This seemed to leave Assou-Ekotto very exposed on the left with literally no one else over there. Anyways, would love your thoughts on that dynamic.
So Michael, what exactly are Arsenal good at?
As mentioned last week – playing against a high line with little physical midfield attenton, shown by the goals scored in the second half
That’s it? What about the two goals they scored in the first half. Spurs defense were sitting deep in those goals.
Does this mean they do not have any chance against Liverpool this week who play a deep line and press in the midfield?
You’re right, the defense was sitting back, but even the first two goals were made possible by a lack of pressure from Spurs’ midfield in the buildup. Lee Dixon brought it up during the MOTD highlights, if you’re able to see them.
And the two wide midfielders were directly responsible for the 1st goal: Kranjcar failed to track Gibbs’ overlapping run (he passed to Arteta who crossed for the assist), and then Bale lost Sagna in the penalty box.
Excellent and interesting tactical points on today’s match. Although tactics played an interesting factor in the final result on the pitch, I think the larger story may be how the roller coaster of emotions over the last couple weeks, including speculation surrounding Harry, and the choice of less-than totally fit players contributed to an extremely flat Spurs performance at the most inopportune time. Up front, Adebayor played tentative, and Defoe would have been a better choice for direct play than Saha. Other than the lucky goal, Saha was never to be seen. Defoe has been in form and would have been able to run at Arsenal’s center backs, and more importantly would have been able to hold the ball to relieve pressure. And will VDV ever be fit, and fit in this system?
The midfield was none existent, while the Spurs defense looked like they did not expect to play today. King showed his age, and AEK looked like he is not quite fit to give his usual 100%, which made Bale less effective in the mid. At the same time, I agree, hats off to Arsenal who took it to the Spurs and played entertaining football.
Just a quick editing point:
“They aren’t used to having to play more conservatively at the back – this was only the second time in the Premier League this season that a side had come to the Premier League and played two upfront.”
Presumably the second “Premier League” should be “the Emirates”.
Good analysis!
The problem with analysing tactics is working out if/when the players are getting it wrong, and if they are is it because they are stupid/having a bad game or were not prepared properly by the management team.
Spurs have been good at keeping it tight when needed this season, the performance against Liverpool was excellent (although they have struggled offensively at home) why couldn’t they switch back to that mentality during a game? The excitement of being 2 up? The frustration of letting the lead slip? Players unused to game time trying to hard to make an impact?
An incredible comeback from Arsenal. As noted, even when the result was 0-2, Arsenal still had the initiative and Spurs were never confident in their backline.
I believe the event got into their heads with all the talks about “shift in power” in London, so after going 2-0 with two lucky goals, they thought Arsenal would crumble. Spurs fullbacks had terrible afternoons and this was indicated by poor showing from BAE, who is usually terrible on big matches. He gets found out quickly.
On the other side, terrific display from Rosicky and Benayoun. They were lively and waltzing through the “swiss cheese” Spurs defence. Van Persie was as exceptional as he was all season. Great football match
BAE comfortably handled Walcott in the first half. It was only when Sagna got forward and outnumbered him (with Bale nowhere to be seen) that he looked exposed. Both walcotts goal came when the Spurs defense pushed up, Kaboul was dragged out of position by van persie and then King was left one on one with Walcott (who started to make central runs into the penatly area).
It was King who was really exposed today
Excellent analysis as usual Michael. I would agreee with posters above that Walcott was largely shackled by the Spurs defence in the first half not giving him any room to run. It’s at times likes this that Walcott looks his worst.
I thought there was sound logic behind Sandro coming on at half time , presumably to sit and offer more defensive cover. I think the failure of this substitution was more Sandro’s fault then Redknapp’s flawed thinking. Similiarly with Van der Vaart, he has caused Arsenal trouble in the past coming in from the wing and pressing the fullback but he was largely anonymous.
Delighted for Rosicky, haven’t seen so much joy from an Arsenal goalscorer in a long time. You could tell he went all out to get to that ball before Friedel.
Michael, as alway incisive and informative description of the tactical game.
Now people may start to understand the Harry is not the beloved tactician that the media ply him out to be. Arsenal were excellent in the second half and all the plaudits to them for a thrilling match but i worry that Harry does not have the killer streak. We lost our shape and also had no direction on the pitch which i have to lay at the Manager’s door. Scottie Parker as usual was a man driven to play for the shirt but if i was Harry i would have to play the video to point out as a premiership team what Spurs did drastically wrong yesterday.
I’m in favour of not making the change at half-time as you knew Arsenal had nothing to lose and would come direct through the middle with their pace. Sandro put in an ill-disciplined performance and Van Da Vaart didn’t look fully fit. I would have like to see Jermaine Defoe given a chance instead os Saha but that’s just a personal preference.
Spurs are better when they are behind against a big team than when in front as they lost their heads yesterday. But, this could be the reality check that they need to realise that being in the top four is not only about talent but concentration.
Brilliant post as usual. Small point: if you’re making the point that 4-3-3 has more men in midfield than 4-4-2, you should probably call it 4-5-1.
I think Michael explained this in an earlier reply but I’ll have a stab at it. A 4-3-3 has a numerical advantage over a 4-4-2, not in the whole of the midfield, but in the central area.
This is because, in a 4-3-3 the front three are usually stretched laterally across the pitch, whereas the midfield 3 are clustered around the central midfield area in a triangle with the tip on the bottom, so it outnumbers a 4-4-2 three against two in the central area.
Of course the wingers in the 4-4-2 can tuck in and help out but that comes at the cost of width and neglect of their marking duties (opposing fullbacks).
premierleague is strange – teams lack organisation
How can both fullbacks be so high and also the defnsive midfielder( here song) be also high on pitch leaving only 2 centre-bacs behind.
For neutrals like me it was such an entertaining match but footballing standard was poor( not individual quality ofcourse but as tactics, discipline)
Keep on updating your site! You have so much available and interesting information! I didn?t even notice how the day passed while reading it! Have a great time! Thank you!
I would really enjoy reading more on this topic and I would appreciate if you will update your blog more often! Thanks a lot! Cheers
Thanks for this blog, thanks for these posts! Lot of truth, fun and inspiration!
Interesting read!!! Your website is fantastic with informative content which i like to add to my favourites.
I have subscribed to your rss so I could continue to receive such wonderful information with your articles! I will share it with my friends, too!
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Well done!
Great article. I really enjoy share for my friends and post on my blog. This article is very remarkable. Well Done!!!
Your site was the first in search for my keywords and it totally deserves the first place! Thanks for your work and I wish you success!
I already viewed plenty of sites working with such topics, for the most part of the people duplicate other site content, but each time to your site I see new & first-class stuff, nice walking.