Tottenham 2-1 Arsenal: high lines and balls in behind the defences

The starting line-ups
Tottenham recorded an important victory over their North London rivals, thanks to two identical goals towards the end of the first half.
Andre Villas-Boas used Gylfi Sigurdsson rather than Lewis Holtby, while Jermain Defoe was fit enough for the bench.
Arsene Wenger used Santi Cazorla on the flank rather than in the middle, which meant Aaron Ramsey played in midfield, and Lukas Podolski was on the bench.
Arsenal actually started strongly and dominated possession for long periods, but as Wenger acknowledged after the game, Spurs were more efficient in the areas that mattered.
Overall pattern
The sides actually used similar systems – a direct winger on the right (Aaron Lennon and Theo Walcott) combined with a playmaker on the left (Sigurdsson and Cazorla), drifting inside to help dominate the centre of the pitch.
This came more naturally to Cazorla, and partly because Arsenal used a ‘proper’ central midfielder as their number ten (whereas Spurs used Gareth Bale, a direct dribbler, in that role), the away side dominated possession in the opening stages. Mikel Arteta sat deep and Wilshere tried to find space between the lines, with support from Aaron Ramsey. Mousa Dembele continued to sit deep alongside Scott Parker, in a much more defensive role than when Sandro was Spurs’ holder.
High lines
The problem with Arsenal’s possession dominance was that it wasn’t particularly valuable in the context of the game. This wasn’t about outnumbering the opposition in the centre of the pitch and asserting dominance through slow, patient build-up play. It was a battle almost entirely about exploiting high defensive lines.
In that respect, the game was similar to the first meeting between Villas-Boas and Wenger – Arsenal’s 5-3 victory over Chelsea at Stamford Bridge last season. Both sides pushed up and squashed the game into a frantic, high-speed clash close to the halfway line. Within the first ten minutes, there were already signs both sides would be able to get runners in behind, and in that respect it also felt like a lot of top-level Eredivisie games, where both sides try to press high from the starts, and are vulnerable to the runs of quick attackers.
Arsenal through-balls
Arsenal did have opportunities to play the ball in beyond Tottenham’s defence, especially as Cazorla came inside and caused an overload in that zone, distracting Parker and leaving Wilshere free between the lines. There were two problems, though – Wilshere’s passes were overhit and went through to Hugo Lloris (who started high up, ready to sweep), while Olivier Giroud lacked the pace to sprint onto balls in behind. Cazorla’s big diagonal switch after ten minutes found Giroud in advance of the defence, but his sluggishness allowed Jan Vertonghen to regain his position and make a fine tackle.
Theo Walcott recognised where the space was, and started to play as a second centre-forward. He made a couple of decent runs that went unspotted, but it’s arguable that his positioning was too ‘obvious’, too permanently central, and in a position where the Tottenham centre-backs could see him easily.
Tottenham defended well, however. Although they started with a high line, they didn’t blindly keep that positioning when Arsenal advanced towards them, and instead dropped off closer to their own goal. Vertonghen’s anticipation skills were invaluable, while Dawson got into good covering positions. Benoit Assou-Ekotto played very narrow and followed Walcott inside, although this opened up his flank to darts forward from Carl Jenkinson, with Sigurdsson also narrow (and not the most natural defender).
Tottenham through-balls
Tottenham were more dangerous in these situations, primarily because Arsenal’s defensive positioning was very poor. The back four continued to play very high up the pitch with little midfield pressure upon the ball – there’d been a couple of warning signs when Bale nearly got in behind in a manner identical to his opener, but his goal actually came because Arsenal were too busy trying to get a player in behind themselves – Walcott was taking up a centre-forward position next to Giroud, which meant the right side was bare. Sigurdsson simply wondered inside and knocked the ball to Bale, who finished nicely.
Also crucial was the run of Adebayor across the front of the defence, turning Arsenal’s players towards their right, as Bale made a run around the other side, to their left. In effectively becoming a second striker, there was a slight similarity to Spurs’ opener at the Emirates in the 5-2 defeat earlier this season – Arsenal unable to cope with 2 v 2 at the back.
Spurs’ second goal was almost identical. Scott Parker’s pass was played from the same position, at the same angle (between Per Mertesacker and Thomas Vermalen) and Lennon’s run was the same as Bale’s (between Vermaelen and Nacho Monreal). See the similarity in the below graphics.

Again, the finish was smooth, again the run was perfectly timed – but Spurs must have been surprised at how easily they created one-on-ones against Wojciech Szczesny. The problem was so obvious it barely needs explaining – the defence was so high up the pitch, with little pressure on the ball. There were other problems: the lack of communication between players when opponents made diagonal runs, and Vermaelen’s individual positioning seemed particularly strange, but the primary issue was Arsenal simply inviting through-balls slid between their defenders.
Second half subs
Predictably, neither side defended with a such an aggressive defence line after half-time – both sat deeper, with Arsenal dominating possession and Spurs retreating into a more defensive shape, getting men behind the ball. Arsenal’s early goal, from Per Mertesacker’s header, made things interesting.
Wenger made two attacking substitutions – after an hour he replaced Jenkinson with Tomas Rosicky, moving Aaron Ramsey to right-back for the second consecutive weekend. It was surprising Bale didn’t go to the left at this point, especially as Ramsey was Arsenal’s only player on a booking.
Rosicky buzzed around in midfield and did OK, but Ramsey’s advanced positioning could have cost Arsenal – he left a big gap that was exploited by Gylfi Sigurdsson on the break – Sigurdsson could have made it 3-1, but underhit his square ball to Bale. That was after Villas-Boas had replaced Adebayor with Defoe – which worked well, as Defoe was more direct on the ball (he would have relished playing against Arsenal’s high line in the first half, too).
Wenger then brought on Lukas Podolski for Mikel Arteta, and Arsenal ended with an extremely attack-minded side – Wilshere and Rosicky in the middle, with Podolski, Cazorla and Walcott supporting Giroud – whose aerial threat became more important once Spurs sat deep. He actually won the vast majority of high balls, but often flicked it towards a Spurs player. Wenger ended up moving Mertesacker forward in the final minutes to become an emergency centre-forward.

The last 15 minutes were more like Arsenal’s games against Harry Redknapp-era Spurs – Arsenal dominating the ball, Spurs sitting deep and narrow before trying to play on the counter-attack.
Conclusion
The game was effectively won before half-time. In an amazingly open match with two staggeringly high defensive lines, Spurs were superior in three areas. First, the defence adjusted their position and dropped deeper. Second, they put more pressure on the ball and stayed compact, to deny Arsenal too many opportunities to play through-balls. Third, their timing of passes and runs was perfect for the two goals.
The third point is, of course, related to the first two – Arsenal’s made it simple for Spurs, who didn’t need to play their best football to win.





The timeline of this match was similar to the last game between Arsenal and Chelsea: Arsenal were down 2-0 at half-time, scored a goal in the second half and failed to get the equaliser.
Also, both games were away from home for Arsenal.
A typically interesting and well analysed piece – I have one question. Three times in this article you mention Arsenal dominating possession during long periods of the match – with the possible exception of the last 15 mins this was not my impression, and the BBC possession stats show Spurs have 54% possession over the match, which felt about right to me. Now, to be fair, the Guardian match stats do back you up – showing 60% possession for Arsenal. So I suppose my question is: what’s going on here? Are we working with multiple different conceptions of possession, are different sources calculating possession differently, or what? I often note that the Guardian and BBC figures diverge quite dramatically (and when I’ve been watching Sky, they usually seem to have a different figure too, although one which I vaguely feel tracks closer to the BBC than to the Guardian). Any thoughts?
I think – and I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong – that the difference comes from one of them using Opta stats, which base their possession metric on number of passes, rather than time on the ball.
To my mind, Arsenal clearly dominated possession in the first half. Less so in the second.
The difference comes from when the ball is out of play. For example, if Arsenal are waiting to take a throw while an oppenent is being treated for an injury, this time would count as Arsenal ‘posession’ to some statisticians, even though the ball is out of play.
In the other method, only minutes in play count towards possession time.
Vermaelen and Mertesacker looked like very shaky defensive duo, not for the first time. It’s been noted on this website that Koscielny forms a good partnership with either defender, as they both need a covering centre half alongside them. It’s remarkable that Koscielny sat on the bench for this one; if Wenger wanted a successful high line (which baffles me to begin with, given Spurs’ pace and struggles against opposition defending deep), he should’ve really used Koscielny from the start.
Any thoughts, ZM?
I actually think that Koscielny is our best center back. His positioning is actually really good and he’s far more aggresive and faster than Vermaelen. Too bad that both of them make a lot of individual mistakes. Mertesacker would be great for us if we played more compact and sat deeper with maybe a good defensive midfielder in front of him.
I don’t understand why he doesn’t get any time here. He was by far and away our best defender last season and he can’t get a sniff of playing time this season. Mertesacker is a good defender when you play deep, but when you give the other team the chance to counter, he’s always going to come up short due to his lack of pace. I also don’t understand why Wenger doesn’t set up the team to defend deep against teams like Spurs, Chelsea, City, and United. We have the pace and the quality to be really dangerous on the counter, I just don’t understand why Wenger doesn’t see that.
Wenger is so tactically poor. He rarely adjust his team to his opponents. Playing with a high line with a poor defensive unit and a midfield who don’t press is suicide against most teams.
At the start of the season Arsenal actually sat deeper and played more reactionary football. I think that this tactc would suit Arsenal more.
Wonder how they will fare against Bayern.
Ribery and Robben have the potential to do the same thing to Arsenal as Bale and Lennon did in this match if they continue to adopt a high line – which might be the case especially with Arsenal needing to chase the match.
put aside all the media hype..and it feel like 2 bald men fighting over a comb. no chance of either winning the lge or champs lge anytime soon. amazing how Arteta was considered a creative player at everton…now he is supposedly their ballwinner. arsenal good with ball, but predictably poor without it. the media talked up Modric as this great player…yet he is not being missed 1 bit. i never quite got him…didn’t score..and rarely assisted. good continuity player but very over-rated IMO
That “comb” is worth a lot of money
Very good analysis, ZM. My match report at http://arsenalletters.com/ makes similar points.
I have been saying this for a while now. Arsenal should get rid of Vermaalen, and find a centerback who can organize the defense. Vermaa;en cannot organize the plates in a diswasher.
Just for what it’s worth, ZM, the first match between Wenger and Villas-Boas was the 5-0 win over Porto in 2010.
Surely AVB hadn’t joined Porto yet
Yeah, “just for what it’s worth”… Jesualdo Ferreira was the Porto manager at the time
Arsenal squeezing the play up so much really played in to our hands, as we thrive on space in behind. AVB has had us playing balls through the defence all season to cutting runners and to leave acres for us to play in to was suicide.
Hey ZM,
Great write-up. One thing I’ve been surprised to see with Spurs is Bale’s evolution into a full-time second striker/attacking midfielder. I had thought AVB might experiment in cup games or pre-season but was very surprised to see Bale start in a central position in Spurs’ biggest game this season. I know you’ve mentioned in the past that Bale does not have the awareness/vision/quick feet that a Mata or Silva has and thus is unsuited for the central role – has anything you’ve seen in the past month changed your opinion there?
Thanks,
Harrington
To a certain extent – I still don’t think he’s a naturally creative player, but the timing of his runs has improved, and his long-range shooting has become extraordinary. I’m still not convinced it’s the best position for him full-time – I’m surprised he hasn’t yet tried being on the right yet. But he’s an odd one – Redknapp is being mocked because he thought Bale would become a left-back, but it wasn’t a ludicrous thing to say. Had Barca signed him two years ago, he’d probably be in the Jordi Alba role…
Considering that Spurs are so much better when playing on the break, putting Bale in the hole gets him on the ball quicker so he can run with the ball with the intent to shoot. Bale inevitably goes down the line where he must often cross, but from the middle he has more lanes to run through. It would be interesting to see how much more Bale shoots from his new position and whether he crosses considerably less. It reminds me of when Ronaldo began playing CF for Manchester; AVB wants Bale to dribble and shoot. Why dribble for a cross, when these players are so good at shooting. With that said, Bale and Sigurdsson really should have switched when Ramsey went to RB.
Considering Adebayor’s form, Bale crossing less and shooting more is a good thing, though Bale’s positioning probably won’t work as well against a team like Inter because Spur’s are sterile when they have a lot of patient possession.
He has started on the right in the last few world cup qualifiers for Wales.
His sheer pace with and without the ball nullifies his lack of creativity. Best suited for a team that plays directly and on the counter.
Arsenal seem to have lost the midfield quality they used to be famous for only a few years ago. Arteta has declined this season, constantly getting dragged up the pitch and leaving the defence unprotected, Diaby is unable to string games together, Ramsey has yet to nail down a stable position and Wilshire is having to deal with both his first season back from injury and a big drop in quality from the last time he played.
In this game Arsenal managed to simultaneously leave lots of space inbetween the lines and also inbehind the defence. The partnership of Verm and Mertesacker didn’t help with the latter, as Verm is extremely aggressive in his positioning and Mertesacker lacks the pace to cover against quality players. This made it easy for the likes of Bale, Lennon and Sigurdsson.
Tottenham didn’t have to play that well here, they just kept there shape and used the ball effectively. A clear strategy succeeded once again against the chaotic play of Arsenal. A bit more structure could really help this team I feel.
If anyone is interested, I wrote an article on the predicted surge of immigrants into the country at the turn of the year
http://economicinterest.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/joining-the-club/
As you said, “Arsenal managed to simultaneously leave lots of space inbetween the lines and also in behind the defence.” Kane, you noted Arsenal’s lack of structure and Arteta’s lack of form, and I would suggest that they are one in the same. Alex Song might wander forward, but his positional sense was good; while asking Arteta to hold down the fort is like asking Pirlo to plug gaps without water-carriers to cover more ground (in Pirlo’s case, there are two in front of him). Arteta will put a tackle in, he is intelligent with space, but it isn’t natural and he can’t do it alone.
Arsenal has quite a few new CB’s (their quality being another issue, Vertonghen was my man of the match to offer a comparison) and now Arsenal are missing a holding-midfielder. Ramsey is a fine player– and ignoring that he isn’t a grafter– his positional sense isn’t helped by his constant positional changes.
Arsenal’s transfer policy continues to be their downfall, even as they choose different types of players (more experienced, more varied skillset, etc.)
Arteta has seemed best suited to Diaby, as they provide a good mix (as shown in the Liverpool game at the start of the season). Diaby provides height, speed and good dribbling ability to drive the ball forward from deep, while Arteta provides assured passing and good interception skills. The problem is Diaby cannot seem to stay fit enough for a prolonged run of games. Though I’m surprised Arteta hasn’t just taken a more disciplined role in his absence, while him and Ramsey could perhaps work given more games together.
I also agree on Vertonghen being MOTM and the quality of Ramsey, he just needs to nail down a position. I myself see him playing in deep midfield, where he can break forward with well timed late runs. Given more game time together, a fluid midfield of Arteta, Ramsey and Wilshire could work very well.
Strangely enough, as a Spurs fan I actually envy what you call Arsenal’s “chaotic” play – I thought it was evident in this game and just about every time I glimpse them that their midfield is just so much more one-touch and fluid in possession, so much more grounded in the basic philosophy of “pass and move”. With us, we have finally learned to press consistently under AVB – which is why we don’t concede much these days (along with Lloris of course) – but we seem incapable of releasing the ball quickly and building a coherent attacking play as a team. Our structure helps us in defense and our workrate off the ball allows us to force sloppy play near the opposition goal that leads to chances, but on the ball we are painfully slow and sluggish or just plain sloppy.
Imo, it’s ball circulation and movement that’s important for breaking down buses, getting around heavy pressing, and preventing chances. Yes Arse have some awful defensive moments but they have actually conceded less than us this season while creating more clearcut chances so I’m not sure why they’d need a proper DM except in certain tactical games.
Mind you, I don’t think our issue is AVB’s coaching or tactics; I think the issue is that we lost our two best passers and most creative forces in Modric and VdV over the summer, and our transfer windows have not adequately replaced their tempo-setting and vision because we’ve focused too much on buying dribblers and runners and shooters rather than intelligence and one-touch passing and and midfield orchestration. Dembele is a CM with superb defensive qualities but both he and Parker hang on to the ball far too long, while Lennon and Bale and Dempsey are dribblers, not visionary playmakers; even our FBs are very direct. OTOH, I have high hopes for Holtby and Gylfi (and little Tom Carroll, probably the most natural ball recycler in our squad) and expect our movement on the ball to improve as time goes on under AVB’s tutelage.
I agree with the idea of it, but the arsenal midfield havn’t played enough together for it to work properly,especially defensively. Arteta tends to push up and neither ramsey or wilshire go to cover. More time playing together would help, but ramsey has ended up playing on the wing a lot this season to help improve his close control.
With Spurs, I think they are really missing Sandro. He and Dembele had a great understanding and provided fluidity and good technical skills. Parker has come in and needed Dembele to stay more compact with him in midfield. He lacks the passing skills to distribute the ball fastly and has lost the mobility he once had this season, making Spurs much more frigid in their movement.
Well said, Skald. Gylfi looked good out wide, though it might be said he generally looks more comfortable in a faster, less physical game. Spurs’ biggest issue, as noted a few times above, is that they struggle against deep defenses. For all their dribbling prowess, it is mostly dependent on speed and space. Dembele and Lennon can beat individual defenders from a standing start, but it hasn’t translated into many goals, and Dembele is often too deep – behind the second line of defense – to play a big role vs a parking-the-bus-type defense. Modric was useless against a deep defense, and I feel his loss was more of an opportunity for Spurs to improve in that vein. I have high hopes that AVB will figure it out next year with the players he has, (and hopefully with another deep-lying MF and better striker).
I’d like to wonder what Arsenal would do with Song or another real defending midfielder / anchorman in midfield. Their defensive woes are well-documented, and no central duo seem to be ‘ideal’. Every combination of Vermaelen, Koscielny and Mertesacker has it’s particular flaws, while Arteta / Ramsey don’t give enough cover from the midfield.
Arsenals shape looked a little bit like a diamond, I wouldnt mind seeing them experiment with it, in theory ramsey and wilshere who both have aot of energy would be pretty descent shutters either side of arteta. Cazorla at the tip looking for space and a combination with 2 of walcott/giroud/podolski offering a threat in behind/in the air/from deep
While the Arsenal central defenders and left-back have received a lot of criticism for the two goals, I’m wondering if Szczesny could have came out earlier (from the videos he started from the edge of the six-yard box for both goals)
In contrast, Lloris has been receiving deserved appreciation for his role in sweeping up behind Spurs’ high defensive line, in particular for his anticipation and quickness. Would Lloris have done any better?
Brilliant article as usual. Though it should be: ‘Sigurdsson simply wandered inside’, instead of wondered.
I was especially pleased to get this web-site.I wanted to thanks for your time for this wonderful read!! I definitely enjoying every single little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you weblog post.
michael kors bags outlet
When I originally commented I clicked the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get 4 emails with the exact same comment. Is there any way you could remove me from that service? Thanks!
jordan 11