Pochettino's Spurs: A Tactical analysis of our season

[LukeBB]

So is it just me, or do all 3 graphs depicting the average position of each player (as presented at the start of each match review) show a too wide gap (on average) between the AM 3 and the – what's the correct football hipster term – double pivot?

They just show the starting lineups and sometimes the general movement patterns. They're aren't necessarily their to illuminate upon any major tactical concepts.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

They just show the starting lineups and sometimes the general movement patterns. They're aren't necessarily their to illuminate upon any major tactical concepts.

I see, I figured they represented more tangible info.

 

[dudu]

good read mate -

 

[Good Doctor M]

Impressive...

Really, really impressive.

 

[LukeBB]

Part 2 has just been released:

http://www.thetottenhamway.com/2015...-tactical-overview-including-the-chelsea-5-3/

features the wins over Everton (2-1), Swansea (2-1) and Chelsea (5-3)

Enjoy!

 

[LukeBB]

http://www.thetottenhamway.com/2015...-analysis-including-the-victory-over-arsenal/

Here's part 3 from a 4 part series of my seasonal tactical review using 13 specific game analysis looking at Pochettino at Spurs. This third piece focuses on the win over Arsenal (2-1) and the losses vs Liverpool (2-3) and Fiorentina (0-2).

Enjoy!

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

http://www.thetottenhamway.com/2015...-analysis-including-the-victory-over-arsenal/

Here's part 3 from a 4 part series of my seasonal tactical review using 13 specific game analysis looking at Pochettino at Spurs. This third piece focuses on the win over Arsenal (2-1) and the losses vs Liverpool (2-3) and Fiorentina (0-2).

Enjoy!

Very good.
One thing I've noticed, when you describe specific players movements, you write as if everything is going according to plan, ie. that all the players position them selves where Pochettino wants them to be. Player X was there and there doing this and this, as if that's have it was meant to be all along. Is there a chance that some of these movements can have been the player misunderstanding instructions, and actually do something different that what Pochetttino planned?

 

[LukeBB]

Very good.
One thing I've noticed, when you describe specific players movements, you write as if everything is going according to plan, ie. that all the players position them selves where Pochettino wants them to be. Player X was there and there doing this and this, as if that's have it was meant to be all along. Is there a chance that some of these movements can have been the player misunderstanding instructions, and actually do something different that what Pochetttino planned?

Of course, unless it's the manager speaking themselves, every detail is open to interpretation as to whether it is part of a plan or just a moment of chaos. Generally I will only make a specific comment on a player's movement if I'm confident I'm aware what's happening either through seeing similar situations happen frequently or whether it makes sense and looks like something the manager would instruct.

 

[LukeBB]

http://www.thetottenhamway.com/2015...view-analysis-including-the-league-cup-final/

Here's part 4 from a 5 part series of my seasonal tactical analysis using 13 specific game case studies looking at Pochettino at Spurs. This fourth piece focuses on our Capital One Cup final loss vs Chelsea (0-2) and our loss away at Old Trafford vs Manchester United (0-3) which also makes an interesting comparison to the tactics used by Andre Villas-Boas when playing against a target man.

 

[CornerPinDreamer]

hey Luke..great work.. suspect the lack of replies is cause it's taking us some time to read and digest

keep going dude...

 

[LukeBB]

hey Luke..great work.. suspect the lack of replies is cause it's taking us some time to read and digest

keep going dude...

No worries mate, hope you enjoyed it.

 

[Style_Over_Substance]

Really astute analysis. I love the evidence based approach you adopt discussing tactics. Please keep writing these articles!

 

[LukeBB]

Really astute analysis. I love the evidence based approach you adopt discussing tactics. Please keep writing these articles!

Will do.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

http://www.thetottenhamway.com/2015...tical-overview-review-analysis-of-the-season/

Here's part 1 from a 5 part series of my seasonal tactical review using 13 specific game analysis looking at Pochettino at Spurs. This first piece looks at our games vs QPR (4-0), Arsenal (1-1) and Stoke (1-2). I hope you enjoy.
(The piece as a whole was 22,219 words).

Interesting stuff as ever Luke. I have big issues with both the QPR and Arsenal away analysis. QPR were so tactically awful it's hard to evaluate and draw to many solid conclusions, especially when there was little sign of some of the positive attributes in subsequent games.

Transversely, the Arsenal game I thought we were so abjectly passive, and by that I mean I have no problem with a robust counter attacking policy, but all we did that day was stand around watching the game go on, reacting furiously last minute to things, and but for Wenger's poor selection choices and those choices wasting their possession with poor choices and execution, we would have got what our timidity deserved. You did allude to this in your last line, suggesting we were a bit fortunate.

I really liked most of the Stoke home analysis, some really insightful analysis here. The one small issue I would take was your assertion that it was the fault of us trying to exact a high press which allowed Bojan to march forward and score. I would argue (and you do actually allude to this) it was our failure - particularly Townsend - to operate the press properly and cohesively, not the idea of the press itself. I believe one of the best ways to counter Stoke's (typical) tactics that day, was to press before they can get themselves in their deep defensive shape, catch them high up in possession, before they have their two banks of well drilled resistance in situ.

I really liked - a lot - the rest of your analysis of this game though, some really interesting insights and informative observations.

The point you make about crosses being one of the lest effective methods of creation was very pertinent, as was your assessment of the poor substitution of Adebayor for Capoue - one of my pet hates, when managers add a striker but remove one of the key components to feed that striker, like saying to a field general "I'm taking away your ammo, but don't worry, I'm giving you another gun".

 

[LukeBB]

Interesting stuff as ever Luke. I have big issues with both the QPR and Arsenal away analysis. QPR were so tactically awful it's hard to evaluate and draw to many solid conclusions, especially when there was little sign of some of the positive attributes in subsequent games.

Transversely, the Arsenal game I thought we were so abjectly passive, and by that I mean I have no problem with a robust counter attacking policy, but all we did that day was stand around watching the game go on, reacting furiously last minute to things, and but for Wenger's poor selection choices and those choices wasting their possession with poor choices and execution, we would have got what our timidity deserved. You did allude to this in your last line, suggesting we were a bit fortunate.

I really liked most of the Stoke home analysis, some really insightful analysis here. The one small issue I would take was your assertion that it was the fault of us trying to exact a high press which allowed Bojan to march forward and score. I would argue (and you do actually allude to this) it was our failure - particularly Townsend - to operate the press properly and cohesively, not the idea of the press itself. I believe one of the best ways to counter Stoke's (typical) tactics that day, was to press before they can get themselves in their deep defensive shape, catch them high up in possession, before they have their two banks of well drilled resistance in situ.

I really liked - a lot - the rest of your analysis of this game though, some really interesting insights and informative observations.

The point you make about crosses being one of the lest effective methods of creation was very pertinent, as was your assessment of the poor substitution of Adebayor for Capoue - one of my pet hates, when managers add a striker but remove one of the key components to feed that striker, like saying to a field general "I'm taking away your ammo, but don't worry, I'm giving you another gun".

I agree that QPR were awful in that game however I still believe it was a very impressive performance from Spurs. I believe as QPR were so inadequate at stopping Spurs play their game, it was a good example to use to show how Poch wanted to use his players at a stage in the season where he had most players fit and available. I perhaps was drawing conclusions about how Poch ideally would want Spurs to play (based off his time at Southampton and pre-season performances) rather than how we would play.

Against Arsenal, I did believe that we were fortunate to achieve a 1-1 draw however I feel your criticism of the team is a little unjustified. It was a clear game plan against Arsenal to defend very deep and I do agree with your point that we seemed off the pace and we did react too late to too many attacks however this would've been down to the unfamiliarity of the approach as we haven't defended like that throughout an entire game for a very long time so it would be no surprise most players would struggle to remember/realise when to press or when to drop hence leading to Arsenal benefiting from this at times. The idea with this approach is too force the opposition wide into a pressing trap however this is a very tricky system to implement and relies on every member of the starting XI carrying out their responsibilities exactly, as we were unlikely to practice this deep approach so early into Poch's reign (who would likely have prioritised coaching the high press in his first few weeks) this would lead to confusion and hence hesitancy or "standing around watching the game".

I see the point you are making about my criticism of the Stoke game and throughout the game, yes, I did criticise our poor application of the high press (i.e. Mason and Townsend not fulfilling their roles, Eriksen instigating the press in the wrong situations) so I wanted to suggest a different way to battle a "long-ball" team. You are right, one way to do this is to press the opposition team high and prevent the supply to the front men, however another way to do this is to drop off and maintain the compactness of the team and encourage the opposition CBs to advance out of their position. A long ball team generally seeks to operate off the second ball (i.e. a flick on or knock down from their target men) but if your team is compact in the vital areas of the pitch then you are more likely to win that second ball and from here you can take advantage of the oppositions lack of team shape. Encouraging Shawcross forward (by dropping off) we encourage him to drive into unfamiliar areas of the pitch which would also create space behind Shawcross, also it allows us to maintain our compact defensive shape (which Eriksen was risking by engaging Shawcross high up the pitch when he wasn't supported by his teammates). This is perhaps the point I was trying to make when I criticised our pressing in this game.

I'm in the same boat as you when it comes to managers bringing on Strikers in desperate attempts to bombard the opposition area towards the end of the game. Generally most abandon the basic strategies of the game by stretching their own team and removing those who could help maintain some sort of balance to the team and therefore help supply to the front men. (Without yet properly analysing it yet) One of the best ways I've seen a team bombard an opposition team at the end of the game was when Borussia Dortmund defeated Malaga in the 2nd leg of their quarter final Champions League tie in 2013. 2-1 down in the final minutes of the game, Dortmund needed 2 goals to win the game and progress to the semi-finals, with Malaga defending deep, instead of bringing on a striker, Klopp introduced Hummels for Gundogan in the 86th minute. This allowed Subotic and Santana to play as strikers/target men in the final minutes of the game whilst Dortmund still maintained a balanced shape (with Hummels staying deep) where they could make use of Hummels ball-playing abilities in order to create effective supply to their new targets. Dortmund scored two goals in stoppage time w/ Santana scoring the winning goal. It was a refreshing approach to the desperate late search for a winner against a team defending deep and one I hadn't seen before.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I see the point you are making about my criticism of the Stoke game and throughout the game, yes, I did criticise our poor application of the high press (i.e. Mason and Townsend not fulfilling their roles, Eriksen instigating the press in the wrong situations) so I wanted to suggest a different way to battle a "long-ball" team. You are right, one way to do this is to press the opposition team high and prevent the supply to the front men, however another way to do this is to drop off and maintain the compactness of the team and encourage the opposition CBs to advance out of their position. A long ball team generally seeks to operate off the second ball (i.e. a flick on or knock down from their target men) but if your team is compact in the vital areas of the pitch then you are more likely to win that second ball and from here you can take advantage of the oppositions lack of team shape. Encouraging Shawcross forward (by dropping off) we encourage him to drive into unfamiliar areas of the pitch which would also create space behind Shawcross, also it allows us to maintain our compact defensive shape (which Eriksen was risking by engaging Shawcross high up the pitch when he wasn't supported by his teammates). This is perhaps the point I was trying to make when I criticised our pressing in this game.

The problem you can (and invariably do) have with that approach, especially if you aren't a particularly quick witted and quick footed team that can transition quickly and intelligently from deep - which we are not - is that you end up winning the ball in deeper positions and well drilled teams like Stoke just reform and you just end up continually trying to bang your (not very quick or clever) heads against the bus again and again.

I think that approach can be more viable when you have got yourself ahead in a game, but I actually think the best way to deal with teams like Stoke at home is to press them high, play a high line, squeeze them, starve them of the long ball outlet and catch them in possession higher up, create over loads that they aren't in shape to deal with.

I'm in the same boat as you when it comes to managers bringing on Strikers in desperate attempts to bombard the opposition area towards the end of the game. Generally most abandon the basic strategies of the game by stretching their own team and removing those who could help maintain some sort of balance to the team and therefore help supply to the front men. (Without yet properly analysing it yet) One of the best ways I've seen a team bombard an opposition team at the end of the game was when Borussia Dortmund defeated Malaga in the 2nd leg of their quarter final Champions League tie in 2013. 2-1 down in the final minutes of the game, Dortmund needed 2 goals to win the game and progress to the semi-finals, with Malaga defending deep, instead of bringing on a striker, Klopp introduced Hummels for Gundogan in the 86th minute. This allowed Subotic and Santana to play as strikers/target men in the final minutes of the game whilst Dortmund still maintained a balanced shape (with Hummels staying deep) where they could make use of Hummels ball-playing abilities in order to create effective supply to their new targets. Dortmund scored two goals in stoppage time w/ Santana scoring the winning goal. It was a refreshing approach to the desperate late search for a winner against a team defending deep and one I hadn't seen before.

I remember that game well.

 

[mpickard2087]

The Arsenal game we did ride our luck a bit at times, and our organisation could have been better (especially the front two getting in behind the ball). But it was refreshing to see us try something different for once. We did have some good counter attack opportunities and defended our penalty area ok-ish and were probably worthy of a point. It's the only point we got away from home in a big game, which is why I was disappointed to see us play open, naïve, rubbish football in the other games.

As for the rest of the season, I think our defensive line has been too deep if anything. I want to see us go all out, be brave, and press high and as a unit. Between the lines there is far too much space, and it all misguidedly gets blamed on our central midfielders in my opinion.

 

[mpickard2087]

@LukeBB and @Bus-Conductor

We had a couple of similar scenarios this season in regards to the Dortmund example you are discussing. Liverpool away when they went 3-2 up for example. At those moments we all know what was going to happen with time running out, we were going to go direct and get the ball in their box at every opportunity. Poch did what most managers do, he without thinking just put Soldado on as the extra striker... What it ignored was that we had 6ft 6 Fazio sat on the bench and he surely is the best option to throw on in those desperate, panicky situations if you need someone to hit.

 

[NeverRed]

But it's probably good content - perhaps you might consider http://www.amazon.co.uk/Letting-Go-Words-Interactive-Technologies/dp/0123859301/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

 

[Deleted member 26368]

Top effort @LukeBB!