Manchester City 2-1 Tottenham: Mancini’s three-man defence shows first positive signs
The starting line-ups
Manchester City turned the game around with a strong second half performance, helped by Roberto Mancini’s mid-game formation switch.
Mancini named Aleksandar Kolarov on the left of midfield, with Samir Nasri ill. David Silva returned on the right, while Matija Nastasic was again at centre-back. Javi Garcia was on the bench, and Mario Balotelli left out completely.
Andre Villas-Boas decided to use Emmanuel Adebayor upfront instead of Jermain Defoe, and Brad Friedel was picked ahead of Hugo Lloris.
This was an interesting tactical contest – Mancini’s switch wasn’t the only key feature, and it wasn’t the sole reason City won, but it was certainly an important factor.
General pattern
4-2-3-1 v 4-2-3-1, more or less, and the home side dominated the match throughout, with 62% possession and twice as many shots. It was an unusual type of dominance, though – especially as they found themselves 0-1 down at half-time. Tottenham weren’t complicit in City’s superiority – they didn’t sit back as willing victims, and instead tried to hold a high line.
In these situations you expect Tottenham to counter-attack quickly. They’d done so superbly at Manchester United, with a famous victory based around direct dribbling from deep positions, chiefly through Mousa Dembele and Gareth Bale. However, with the Belgian injured and Bale barely involved on the left (despite David Silva’s narrowness and Pablo Zabaleta’s early booking), Tottenham actually created very little on the break – which was particularly surprising as Adebayor had an excellent game. He dropped deep away from the Manchester City centre-backs, and for long periods often appeared to be playing Clint Dempsey’s role as well as his own – the American had a very quiet game.
While Tottenham’s productivity in open play was minimal, they went ahead through a set-piece. This has been a repeated problem for City in recent weeks, and they contributed to their downfall here by conceding an incredible number of cheap, unnecessary fouls near the flanks – although they stopped doing so after half-time.
Spurs high line
Tottenham’s high defensive line was a problem, however. As mentioned after City’s draw against Ajax in midweek, Carlos Tevez and Sergio Aguero have a good relationship when fielded as the front two – Tevez works the space between the lines and tempts centre-backs to come towards play, while Aguero sprints in behind. The latter is such a complete forward that reducing him to a pure sprinter feels unfair, but his incredible acceleration and intelligent runs makes him a real threat in that respect. This continued well into the second half, with Aguero fluffing a potential one-on-one with Friedel because of poor control, with the score still at 0-1.
Of course, if exploiting a high line you need incisive passing in addition to pace, and Silva drifted inside typically from the right flank. In the first half, he constantly overhit passes that trickled through to Friedel, although the fact he was continually getting space (by overloading the central areas) was a real concern.
City change
The line-ups after Mancini moved to 3-4-1-2
On 57 minutes, Mancini made his dramatic change. Nastasic was sacrificed with Maicon introduced down the right. Zabaleta and Clichy became the outside centre-backs, Vincent Kompany played in the middle. Higher up, Silva became a permanently central playmaker, in a standard 3-4-1-2.
Previously it’s been difficult to understand why Mancini has moved to three at the back. Against Ajax in Amsterdam, he suggested he was deliberately playing three at the back because Ajax only used one striker, which goes against conventional wisdom in leaving one spare man at the back. Against Real Madrid the decision was broadly more understandable, but he made the mistake of leaving his side incredible unbalanced, and the subsequent concessions from the right-back zone were entirely predictable.
Here, it made more sense. Tottenham weren’t strictly playing two upfront, but Dempsey is looked upon as a forward by Villas-Boas, and with Lennon and Bale now pushed back towards their own goal, the City three could deal with Tottenham’s two forwards effectively.
The real benefits were higher up. Using Maicon against Bale was a huge risk considering the Brazilian’s problems against him a couple of years ago, but Bale appeared frustrated by his lack of involvement and didn’t offer Jan Vertonghen enough defensive support. Maicon got into one-versus-one situations and powered past the Belgian easily – although the flip side was that Bale went on a decent run down a bare flank, his only real contribution in the second half.
More significantly, Silva moved into a central position between the lines, in a zone Tottenham were completely overrun in. With Dempsey now the responsibility of the centre-backs, Spurs now had a problem in central positions. Broadly speaking, the two Tottenham centre-backs and the two central midfielders were forced to deal with five City players, and Silva was naturally the man to find – and use – the space most effectively.
Subs
The obvious question is why Villas-Boas didn’t try to shut the game down. His only significant change was in the final five minutes, bringing on Kyle Naughton for Lennon – but it was a surprise that Dempsey remained on the pitch when he contributed so little either defensively or offensively. Jake Livermore, hardly a celebrated player but a more defensive option than Dempsey, would have been an obvious substitute. Villas-Boas has probably been put off by his early experiences at White Hart Lane this season, when he twice lost 1-0 leads after defensive substitutions.
But the perfect recipe for a late comeback was being created. Tottenham’s high line was mixed with the tiredness of their midfielders and the lack of pressure on the ball, plus Silva becoming free. The Spaniard contributed to the first goal, although it was a scrappy move, but his clipped pass for the winner was sublime – and in Edin Dzeko City have a reliable if reluctant supersub to score important winners.
Conclusion
One constant theme – Tottenham’s high line – mixed with a neat tactical switch from Mancini. We shouldn’t entirely credit City’s comeback to his formation change, because they had the momentum even with their 4-2-3-1, and Tottenham always seemed likely to tire. However, putting Silva in a permanent central position worked out excellently, Maicon caused danger down the right, and City weren’t troubled defensively. For the first time, three at the back worked for City in an 11 v 11 game.
More negatives than positives for Tottenham, despite leading for half the game. They didn’t counter anything like as effectively as against Manchester United, they didn’t close the game effectively at 1-0, Villas-Boas didn’t use his bench well, and his players couldn’t cope with a high defensive line against Aguero.
Picking up on your point about Dempsey, he wasn’t good here, but he has been used with Defoe to provide an aerial target for clearances from the back and to hold the ball up, as Defoe is not good at this. Using Adebayor here meant he wasn’t needed to do this role and instead was deployed to stop Toure moving the ball forward, forcing him to pass sideways.
This was effective until City went three at the back and Toure could get further forward – his burst from midfield (albeit with Walker’s skewed mis-clearance help) created the first for Aguero.
Sigurdsson may have been a better choice to Dempsey here due to his better ability to link the play, as Adebayor was doing a fine job holding the ball up.
@Spurs Fanatic, I agree with you that Dempsey was pretty much invisible all game, but Adebayor was great in attack. If I was AVB, i would have played either Sigurdsson or Dembele in place of Dempsey.
You write: “As mentioned after City’s draw against Ajax in midweek, Carlos Tevez and Sergio Aguero have a good relationship when fielded as the front two”.
As I wrote in response to that piece, in the Ajax game, Tevez completed just 1 (one) pass to Aguero in the first half (an example of a Tevez ‘I pass to you and you pass it back to me’ type of pass). In the second half, he completed 1 (one) pass to Aguero and 0 (zero) passes to Balotelli.
As yet I have not watched my recording of the Spurs game to count Tevez passes.
I am disappointed because I had thought that, in contrast to most football correspondents, you would read the comments on your pieces.
He said they work well as a front two. That doesn’t mean that they have to pass to each other. It means they understand each others roles and create space for each other.
he is partly right . the front two need to combine with each other not just make spaces .
Maybe he reads them, but it doesn’t mean he has to agree with them. In this very article he talks about how they work as a good partnership because the movement of one creates space for the other. Pass counts will not show that sort of relationship.
Pace wesley, I realised that the author was focusing on ‘creating space for each other’. And I do not minimize the importance of that. Indeed, my objection to one of the EPL Indices – the proportion of team goals that a striker is deemed to contribute to – is precisely that, if a player makes a diversionary run that creates space for someone who then scores, the former’s ‘performance index’ is thereby reduced. More generally, if one is designing a performance index for an individual player, ideally an unambiguously ‘good’ action by the player should NOT reduce that player’s index.
I used the term ‘disappointed’ because I was genuinely so. To be honest, I ruled out as unlikely that he had read my original comment and disregarded it completely. Pace Chris, it is not a question of his agreeing / disagreeing with my subjective view. I made empirical claims: In regard to the Ajax game, Tevez completed 1 pass to Aguero in the first half; in the second half, playing deeper, he completed 1 pass to Aguero and 0 passes to Balotelli. I did not expect the author to watch again the Ajax game. But I did hope that he might keep an eye out for the frequency of Tevez passes to fellow strikers in the next City game he watched. Anyone with half an eye out for that would have seen that they were again rare in the Spurs game. In fact, having now watched my recording of the Spurs game, I counted 2 Tevez passes to Aguero in the 72 minutes both were on the field (with 2 passes from Aguero to Tevez). My own interpretation – and this is entirely subjective – is that they pretty much stay out of each others way, with no notion whatsoever of deliberately creating space for each other.
If the author genuinely believes that a ‘front two’ can have a ‘good relationship’ even though they scarcely ever pass to each other, I think that he should state this explicitly. If he can make a real case for that, then it is a genuine discovery.
Just for info, but stats zone has Tevez as completing 5 passes to Aguero and Sergio making 4 to Carlos.
Thanks for the information, Spurs Fanatic.
When presenting such figures, I normally include a caveat along the lines: “P.S. The above stats are offered in good faith but could be inaccurate! It is not always easy on TV to distinguish players. It is also possible I may have lost concentration”. (After 40 years as an academic, that sort of ’self-protection’ becomes second nature!) However, I am very puzzled by the discrepancy between their figures and my figures, even allowing for the possibility that I may have been using a different notion of ‘completion’. If mine are wrong, I apologize. I am not sure that I can summon up the effort to watch the Spurs game to count passes again! I would sooner devote the time to counting Tevez passes in City’s crucial last three premier league games of last season (Man U., Newcastle and QPR). Tevez fanatics insist that, following his returm from his golfing holiday in Argentina, he won the premier league for City more or less single-handedly.
@Martin i disagree with you, the author did not specifically need to mention that whether a front two have a good relationship just because they pass to each other??? we are not talking about Xavi here…
tactical awareness of the players also counts and that the same what happen last time with rooney and CR, rooney would make decoy run to open space for CR to run to and that what it’s called skill without the ball. and no there ’s no statistic can measure this skills
Following up on my theme that Tevez sees fellow strikers as rivals, I have just watched again the crucial game against Man U. last April. Subject to the caveat mentioned elsewhere about human error (by me) and ignoring the kick-off to start the game, I counted 1 completed pass from Tevez to Aguero and 3 completed passes from Aguero to Tevez in the 67 minutes before Tevez was substituted.
At approx. the 37th minute, pretty much the first real ‘contact’ between Tevez and Aguero (again ignoring the kick-off) saw the former attempting to return a pass to the latter. It was, in fact, intercepted but the TV commentator (one of the better ones) seized on this incident to state that “they seem to sing from the same song sheet”, with a similar response from one of the very best co-commentators. When it comes to Tevez, even good commentators and pundits cannot see beyond the media hype and media caricature.
I believe that Dempsey and Sigurdsson either should not have been bought at all during the summer window or these two transfers should have been made after Joao Moutinho, or someone in this particular passer mould, was signed.I expect Villas-Boas to buy a player like that in January so that he can replicate in a way the midfield three he used at Porto with Moutinho (or any other deep playmaker) dictating play, Sandro sweeping up behind him and running from deep when needed as he has tremendous energy and Dembele doing his thing (dribbling, combining with the wide players also i think that he will prove to be a reliable goalscorer for this team).Futhermore, i think that Lennon will need to start providing some goals or else he’s in danger of getting replaced although he hasn’t been awful so far.One last thing, how does Dzeko keep doing it???!!!
I think the biggest mistake AVB made was not substituting Vertonghen. He obviously didn’t have the legs for the last twenty minutes, and Bale seemed to be more pre-occupied with the chance of breaking away for an unlikely winner than helping him out. It’s a shame he didn’t have Neville’s commentary piped in the dug-out. Tiredness also seemed to be a problem for quite a few of the Spurs team as well- in particular Huddlestone who faded fast in the second half. Just need to cross our fingers until the return of Dembele & Parker.
Not the first time that’s happened this season after a Thursday Europa game.
Siggurdson and Dempsy have turned out to be complete transfer busts…Tottenham really need a #10 who plays between the defensive lines, plays horizontally and acts as a creator…how Southhampton were willing to pay more for Gaston Ramirez than Spurs is beyond me, Levy Strikes Again… They also need some cover for dembele and Kyle walker need to make moves because 4th and potentially 3rd are up for grabs
Dempsey a bust? He scored the winner at Old Trafford. Overreact much?
Are you joking, Denis? Have you even watched a single Tottenham match this season? Even in the United game he was nowhere to be seen except for getting a tap in to an empty net.
Siggurdson, for me, hasn’t been given enough of a chance and that has to do with Dempsey being bought. I didn’t see the need for Dempsey at all when he was purchased and I still don’t see it. Especially since they got rid of VDV, this was a game when they clearly needed what he brings to a match in place of what Dempsey did(nothing). VDV linked up very well with Crouch and played well behind Adebayor last season as well. The selling of VDV, who didn’t really want out, makes no sense to me now or then. Can he play ninety minutes? No, does he track back? Not really. But you ask him to find space in between the lines and link play and also be a goal threat and he does it. Spurs missed that today and not for the first time.
Maybe Siggurdson can be that player, more of a chance than Dempsey does, but AVB hasn’t given him the time out there to show it, he had one poor game and we’ve been stuck with Dempsey in that spot ever since. Wish Liverpool had ponied up the cash and bought him instead of Spurs. Tottenham should have been in on Esteban Granero, not Dempsey. Much younger and more of passing midfield, creative type than Dempsey, which is what they need.
Resigned to the fact that Spurs as currently constructed just aren’t a top four team. Maybe when Dembele comes back things will improve. Modric is missed in matches like this when Spurs get pressed and can’t find a way to deal with it.
The good news for Spurs is that Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton and Newcastle also aren’t, as currently constructed, top 4 teams either.
I saw only the highlights – what struck me most was a matter of personnel: Silva is far better than Nasri.
nice writing ZM..thanks
AVB’s persistence on a high d-line in combination with lack of pressing is still as baffling as it was with Chelsea. Even if AVB would look to rectify the problem with more intense pressing it’d make very little sense given the personnel (both Bale and Lennon being uncomfortable/ ineffective playing higher up). I’d really like to hear his reasoning for the approach.
Three at the back is a trendy suggestion to address team’s problems (often without logic), but it’d make a lot of sense with Tottenham. There’s a plethora of CB’s in the squad with Gallas, Vertonghen and Caulker all being well equipped for the outside centerback positions, and Bale + Walker being as natural wingbacks as they come in the BPL (+ Ekotto / Naughton for adequate cover). Only Lennon would find it difficult to fit such a shape, but sorry Lennon fans, I wouldn’t consider it a loss.
Though that being said, I don’t think it’s in any way likely that AVB would go for such a drastic change.
And thanks for the analysis again, Michael.
I disagree about the high line.There is no comparison with last year at Chelsea.Vertoghen with Caulker or Kaboul will be a good CB pairing when returns from injuries allow it to happen and i seriously doubt they’ll face the problems that slowpoke Terry faced when asked to play high up the pitch.Bale has absolutely no problem playing higher up as you mention.I’m confident he can play whenever he’s asked to, he’s a beast.
you just dont have to consider the centrebacks to play a high line . entire team has to press and defend well and deny space and time over the ball which i am sorry spurs cant do .
three man defence is outdated……
Right after study a number of of the blog site posts with your web page now, and I actually like your strategy for blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark web page checklist and can be checking again soon. Pls test out my website site at the same time and let me know what you’re thinking that.
With regards the Ajax match, I didn’t see it but did Mancini want the outside centre-backs to mark the wingers and use the wing-backs more as wingers since he would have hoped that they could dominate possession? It’s the only way I can make sense of his comments. It seems that he wants to defend with 3 men as an attacking change or 5 men as a defensive change?
THIS is the only way it makes sense. Using this tactic, yes, the team will be very offensive, but it is an unconvencional way of playing the “3 at the back system” because at its roots it is supposed to be played against 2 strikers, supporting the theory that the number of defenders needs to be superior by one (more than one for defending) than the number of strikers.
) I think Mancini spied me.
I started playing like this a year ago in FIFA
Hi ZM. I really don’t understand why Mancini played with 3 CBs in this match because he had 3 v 1 (Adebayor) at the back, Dempsey remaining free… or did 1 of the 3 CBs tooked responsability for chasing/marking/stoping Dempsey ?
Another thing is that in this system (3412) Spurs fullbacks remained free. Why didn’t Tottenham used this advantage to create 2v1 situations with City’s fullbacks?
I’ll give you my opinon on this. Tottennham were already tired and caught a few times with their high line. Consequently, they dropped back and kept a tight back four and in truth it was 1 v 1 on the flanks, cause Bale was not bothered with Maicon, it was a shame he couldn’t connect with anyone in the box. Plus City had nothing to worry at the back(Yes, Dempsey!).
Hi ZM. When Mancini changed to 3 CB at the back, Spurs’ players were signalling each other to exploit it to push City back, particularly at the area around Maicon and Zalabeta. But as you said, City had the momentum then, Zabaleta’s speed was better suited to cover the wider area, plus another factor may be that Spurs’ players just aren’t capable or suited for ball retention to exploit that – the way Liverpool, Ajax and Dortmund did versus City. Huddlestone, Bale, Dempsey, Sandro and tiring Vertonghen, simply not able to keep possession with Maicon, Zabaleta, Silva, Toure and Barry there. And just as they were starting to do so, a quick counter-attack from Toure that resulted in the equalizer, which had nothing to do with the change IMO. Be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
Cheers ZM. Regards,
Boon
I’m impressed that you managed to work out what they were trying to say! I saw Gallas getting involved in the tactical rejigging but couldn’t really work out precisely what he was saying. But what you’re saying sounds spot on…
I’d disagree slightly on the change not impacting upon the goal – I thought Spurs looked significantly more….desperate, really…in that zone around the two central midfielders. Toure’s bursts became more of a factor after a quiet first half and Silva also looked dangerous there.
It was a guess, not meant it as an imperative. I saw how Dortmund and Liverpool pushed back City around the right-back and left-back area when City went 3 at the back, and thought AVB being the meticulous tactician, prepared for that possible eventuality beforehand. AVB said in an interview that when City changed with 3 on the back to go for an all-out attack, Spurs were finding more gaps and spaces, and trying to be more comfortable on the ball:http://soccernet.espn.go.com/video/espnfc/video?id=1223105&cc=4716.
Yeah after the equalizer onwards, agree that City looked dangerous around the two central midfielders’ area with the extra man in Silva. Maybe I need to rewatch again about the factors for the equalizer.
i don’t think it needs to rely on possession. you can probably get away with conceding more possession to the 3412 as the threats come only from the central areas.
i agree with many posters here as I’m surprised spurs didn’t utilise 2v1 situations on the flanks (particularly with Zabaleta on a yellow) and also encourage Dempsey to drop deeper to help out defensively in midfield to block the spaces for Toure
City was pressing Spurs and having a high-line of their own, making it a point to nullify Spurs’ strength down the flanks by denying Spurs space, so it’s difficult to create 2v1 situation.
Well, the idea is to use Dempsey to occupy the 3 centerbacks, so that they’d have 1 extra man doing nothing just so they can maintain their shape, consequently leaving them undermanned elsewhere. Concede possession to the likes of City who has the quality to hurt you? Well that was what happened leading up to the equalizer. The teams that managed to really pin back City with 3 man defense were pretty good possession-wise. I thought the execution from Spurs in comparison was poor. Adebayor and Bale were trying to do occupy the space there, but needed more support from Huddlestone and Sandro I think. There’s only 2 guys on the field who were natural at retaining possession – Adebayor and Vertonghen. AVB IMO has the right idea, but don’t have the tools to do so – so ultimately it was the wrong idea really. It requires players with sound appreciation of space and positional sense. Huddlestone in that instance put in a long ball towards Bale/Adebayor, where there were plenty of City players concentrated in that area then. The smarter thing to do is to first pass elsewhere where there are lots of space, so that the concentration of players are forced to disperse, and then slowly circulate and pin them back into that area. Instead what happened was City immediately won the ball and counter-attacked for the goal.
Hi ZM.
Could you please enlighten me about my last comment here? I am really interested about Mancini’s tactics, even though I’m a UTD fan. I had to admit that he’s a good tactician, even though he made some mistakes.
Spurs’ crude but effective 1st half tactics should also be mentioned.
Basically, City dominated possession for the first 15 or so minutes and effectively prevented Spurs from getting out of their own half of the pitch. So what did Spurs do to get the ball moving upfield? They turned the football match into a rugby match: hard fouls, heads butted, collisions of all kinds. The result? Several City players ended up writhing in pain and eating dirt.
Having asserted themselves physically, Spurs were then able to move the ball, which eventually led to the free kick and the resultant goal.
Sometimes, a bit of rough-house is necessary when being outplayed.
I would suggest it was the other way around, and I figure the first half foul count would support that (not that I’m bothered to look). City were frustrated by Tottenham’s formation. Tottenham were satisfied to maintain their shape, prevent balls through the middle which could kill their high line; while City’s patience with the ball reinforced Spur’s tactics. Both teams made this a tetchy game, and the player and fan reactions to certain contests were poor. At least the coaches were well behaved.
Spurs played rather much like Man City did when Mancini first arrived. Formation first, goal second.
I’m truly enjoying the design and layout of your website. It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more pleasant for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a designer to create your theme? Great work!
ZM, just a brief point about something you said in the conclusion – “For the first time, three at the back worked for City in an 11 v 11 game.”. The Community Shield victory against Chelsea was carried out with three at the back.
but it was an 11 v 10 game.