What's new

SC's Tactical Autopsy thread

heelspurs

heelspurs

Le filet mignon est un bastion de rosbif
Jul 25, 2012
4,270
5,105
Week 1: Everton vs THFC

Although the result from this game was not what we desired, nor the play particularly inspired, it was notable for a few reasons that may provide some level of insight into how this new season will go. From an Everton supporter's prospective they will be far happier with their team's organization, application, and what I can only believe to be better league position. But beyond their role as counter-balance to the red Scouse I have little concern about that. From a Spurs supporter's prospective this game left me with a few concerns, both personnel and tactical, and some areas where my confidence was reaffirmed.

Spurs began in a nominal 4-2-3-1 formation, to no one's surprise, with a full complement of their starting XI, save for the suspended Dembele. Everton did surprise somewhat with a nominal 3-4-3 formation utilizing personnel slightly ill-suited to the formation.

But as usual in modern football the static formations only hint at the underlying tactics. The manager's instructions and the players' habits and preferences have a greater influence on the overall tactical interplay.

What is evident from viewing the game and this picture is that Everton, although setting out in a front 3, dynamically changed to 3-4-1-2/3-4-2-1 with a very fluid front 3.
This is perhaps Koeman's most evolved tactical scheme against us. We can analyze this further since Koeman has opposed us in the penultimate game of last season with Soton and the 1st game of this season with Everton utilizing slightly different tactical setups. On evidence our personnel and tactics have not changed much so this serves as a good temporal comparison and possibly a harbinger of what is to come for us this season if we don't adapt.

When reviewing the games it is clear that Soton pressed our back 4 and attempted to cutoff the supply to the CM2 but due to formation/starting position of their AM3 it wasn't completely successful. However, the free man tended to be Mason who was not very daring with his play. Additionally, they did not prevent play in the halfspaces, restrict our FBs from getting forward (as their midfield played narrow), nor prevent the long diagonal. Essentially Soton harried us and made it difficult but really didn't stop us from playing our game; they just countered the hell out of us.

Contrast this with the Everton game where our backline was pressed to death with no effective outlet save for CB interplay or sideways passes out to the FBs. The difference here is the setup of the team. Utilizing a rotating front 3 (sometimes 1-2, sometimes 2-1) they were able to pressure both our CBs and limit their options everytime they received the ball. Sometimes they were free with limited passing options and others they were being closed down with only difficult/undesired passing options. The get-outta-jail-free card to the FBs and the diagonal ball was cutoff because of the width of their midfield 4, the vertical compactness of their lines, the pinning of our FBs and the pressing of our CBs.

As those who watched the game will know we looked lost in the first half and barely threatened their area. Of course the gameplans were confounded by their early goal affording them the luxury of sitting back and outside of their setpiece goal and Rose's poor backpass they really didn't threaten too much. But neither did we int he first half.

The 2nd Half began similar to the first but changed ~55 minutes with the introduction of Janssen. Our improvement was not just down to his industry and effectiveness but other changes as well. Dropping Harry back to the 10 gave us someone else to 'play' in the midfield and it bore fruit immediately as he recieved a ball in the left halfspace and switched to Toby which lead to our 1st real chance of the game, a Dele skied effort. Harry's dropping connected our theretofore disjointed midfield.

The other change was the switch of Eriksen and Lamela to their orthodox wings thus providing natural advanced width and service into the more advanced Janssen. This also dropped the ineffective Dele into the CM2 (though he actually played slightly advanced of Wanyama). And the final tactical change was the driving of the ball forward by our CBs. This caused overloads in familiar areas for us and disrupted their defensive lines.

As @Bus-Conductor has mentioned one of the posibilities Poch could have utilized was a formation shift to a 433 from our 4231. Presumably our formation would have looked like this then:

With the personnel at hand I am not sure how that change would have benefited us. Gueye was chomping at Eriksen like a rottweiler on a postman's leg so I doubt that his threat would have improved in a more congested center. Holgate was able to match Dele's athleticism and physicality and with no threat in behind nor the ability to beat a man his threat would have remained nonexistent. From the left Lamela comes in to add to the midfield which would have remained congested and without the numerical advantage of bombing FBs. This is all assuming that Koeman did not respond by altering to another formation.

What I believe the best formational change that could have occured in the 1st half was what was employed in the Soton game and many other times throughout last season when facing 2 strikers or a high press and that was to drop Dier into a back 5.

This would have:
  1. improved the starting position of the FBs higher up the pitch with less defensive responsibility
  2. kept our man advantage at the back while opening our normal passing lanes
  3. increased the distance the Everton forwards had to close down
  4. decrease the vertical stretch of our formation that was effectively cut in two by their midfield 4 limiting our play on the ground
  5. Moved our players starting positions into free space instead of marked space thereby making our play less predictable and forcing their defenders to make decisions
  6. placed similar numbers of players in similar positions to press like our base formation
I believe this should have been the formation we switched to in the first half to tighten things up and to improve our play going forward. As such I do believe that the Janssen sub was about the only sub Poch could have made, considering that bench, that could change the game. So I don't really give him credit for that one. The other changes he deserves full credit for and had we won maybe even a little extra credit.

Edit: Some grammar and would like to apologize for the small size of those pics. They were much larger in the preview. Perhaps I utilized the improper link for it to render correctly.
 
Last edited:
lukespurs7

lukespurs7

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2006
4,833
4,259
heelspurs said:
Week 1: Everton vs THFC

Although the result from this game was not what we desired, nor the play particularly inspired, it was notable for a few reasons that may provide some level of insight into how this new season will go. From an Everton supporter's prospective they will be far happier with their team's organization, application, and what I can only believe to be better league position. But beyond their role as counter-balance to the red Scouse I have little concern about that. From a Spurs supporter's prospective this game left me with a few concerns, both personnel and tactical, and some areas where my confidence was reaffirmed.

Spurs began in a nominal 4-2-3-1 formation, to no one's surprise, with a full complement of their starting XI, save for the suspended Dembele. Everton did surprise somewhat with a nominal 3-4-3 formation utilizing personnel slightly ill-suited to the formation.

But as usual in modern football the static formations only hint at the underlying tactics. The manager's instructions and the players' habits and preferences have a greater influence on the overall tactical interplay.

What is evident from viewing the game and this picture is that Everton, although setting out in a front 3, dynamically changed to 3-4-1-2/3-4-2-1 with a very fluid front 3.
This is perhaps Koeman's most evolved tactical scheme against us. We can analyze this further since Koeman has opposed us in the penultimate game of last season with Soton and the 1st game of this season with Everton utilizing slightly different tactical setups. On evidence our personnel and tactics have not changed much so this serves as a good temporal comparison and possibly a harbinger of what is to come for us this season if we don't adapt.

When reviewing the games it is clear that Soton pressed our back 4 and attempted to cutoff the supply to the CM2 but due to formation/starting position of their AM3 it wasn't completely successful. However, the free man tended to be Mason who was not very daring with his play. Additionally, they did not prevent play in the halfspaces, restrict our FBs from getting forward (as their midfield played narrow), nor prevent the long diagonal. Essentially Soton harried us and made it difficult but really didn't stop us from playing our game; they just countered the hell out of us.

Contrast this with the Everton game where our backline was pressed to death with no effective outlet save for CB interplay or sideways passes out to the FBs. The difference here is the setup of the team. Utilizing a rotating front 3 (sometimes 1-2, sometimes 2-1) they were able to pressure both our CBs and limit their options everytime they received the ball. Sometimes they were free with limited passing options and others they were being closed down with only difficult/undesired passing options. The get-outta-jail-free card to the FBs and the diagonal ball was cutoff because of the width of their midfield 4, the vertical compactness of their lines, the pinning of our FBs and the pressing of our CBs.

As those that watched the game will know we looked lost in the first half and barely threatened their area. Of course the gameplans were confounded by their early goal affording them the luxury of sitting back and outside of their setpiece goal and Rose's poor backpass they really didn't threaten too much. But neither did we int he first half.

The 2nd Half began similar to the first but change ~55 minutes with the introduction of Janssen. Our improvement was not just down to his industry and effectiveness but other changes as well. Dropping Harry back to the 10 gave us someone else to 'play' in the midfield and it bore fruit immediately as he recieved a ball in the left halfspace and switched to Toby which lead to our 1st real chance of the game, a Dele skied effort. Harry's dropping connected our theretofore disjointed midfield.

The other change was the switch of Eriksen and Lamela to their orthodox wings thus providing natural advanced width and service into the more advanced Janssen. This also dropped the ineffective Dele into the CM2 (though his actually played slightly advanced of Wanyama). And the final tactical change was the driving of the ball forward by our CBs. This caused overloads in familiar areas for us and disrupted their defensive lines.

As @Bus-Conductor has mentioned one of the posibilities Poch could have utilized was a formation shift to a 433 from our 4231. Presumably our formation would have looked like this then:

With the personnel at hand I am not sure how that change would have benefited us. Gueye was chomping at Eriksen like a rottweiler on a postman's so I doubt that his threat would have improved in a more congested center. Holgate was able to match Dele's athleticism and physicality and with no threat in behind nor the ability to beat a man his threat would have remained nonexistent. From the left Lamela comes in to add to the midfield which would have remained congested and without the numerical advantage of bombing FBs. This is all assuming that Koeman did not respond by altering to another formation.

What I believe the best formational change that could have occured in the 1st half was what was employed in the Soton game and many other times throughout last season when facing 2 strikers or a high press and that was to drop Dier into a back 5.

This would have:
  1. improved the starting position of the FBs higher up the pitch with less defensive responsibility
  2. kept our man advantage at the back while opening our normal passing lanes
  3. increased the distance the Everton forwards had to close down
  4. decrease the vertical stretch of our formation that was effectively cut in two by their midfield 4 limiting our play on the ground
  5. Moved our players starting positions into free space instead of marked space thereby making our play less predictable and forcing their defenders to make decisions
  6. placed similar numbers of players in similar positions to press like our base formation
I believe this should have been the formation we switched to in the first half to tighten things up and to improve our play going forward. As such I do believe that the Janssen sub was about the only sub Poch could have made, considering that bench, that could change the game. So I don't really give him credit for that one. The other changes he deserves full credit for and had we won maybe even a little extra credit.
Click to expand...
Love this
 
Bus-Conductor

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
heelspurs said:
Week 1: Everton vs THFC

Although the result from this game was not what we desired, nor the play particularly inspired, it was notable for a few reasons that may provide some level of insight into how this new season will go. From an Everton supporter's prospective they will be far happier with their team's organization, application, and what I can only believe to be better league position. But beyond their role as counter-balance to the red Scouse I have little concern about that. From a Spurs supporter's prospective this game left me with a few concerns, both personnel and tactical, and some areas where my confidence was reaffirmed.

Spurs began in a nominal 4-2-3-1 formation, to no one's surprise, with a full complement of their starting XI, save for the suspended Dembele. Everton did surprise somewhat with a nominal 3-4-3 formation utilizing personnel slightly ill-suited to the formation.

But as usual in modern football the static formations only hint at the underlying tactics. The manager's instructions and the players' habits and preferences have a greater influence on the overall tactical interplay.

What is evident from viewing the game and this picture is that Everton, although setting out in a front 3, dynamically changed to 3-4-1-2/3-4-2-1 with a very fluid front 3.
This is perhaps Koeman's most evolved tactical scheme against us. We can analyze this further since Koeman has opposed us in the penultimate game of last season with Soton and the 1st game of this season with Everton utilizing slightly different tactical setups. On evidence our personnel and tactics have not changed much so this serves as a good temporal comparison and possibly a harbinger of what is to come for us this season if we don't adapt.

When reviewing the games it is clear that Soton pressed our back 4 and attempted to cutoff the supply to the CM2 but due to formation/starting position of their AM3 it wasn't completely successful. However, the free man tended to be Mason who was not very daring with his play. Additionally, they did not prevent play in the halfspaces, restrict our FBs from getting forward (as their midfield played narrow), nor prevent the long diagonal. Essentially Soton harried us and made it difficult but really didn't stop us from playing our game; they just countered the hell out of us.

Contrast this with the Everton game where our backline was pressed to death with no effective outlet save for CB interplay or sideways passes out to the FBs. The difference here is the setup of the team. Utilizing a rotating front 3 (sometimes 1-2, sometimes 2-1) they were able to pressure both our CBs and limit their options everytime they received the ball. Sometimes they were free with limited passing options and others they were being closed down with only difficult/undesired passing options. The get-outta-jail-free card to the FBs and the diagonal ball was cutoff because of the width of their midfield 4, the vertical compactness of their lines, the pinning of our FBs and the pressing of our CBs.

As those that watched the game will know we looked lost in the first half and barely threatened their area. Of course the gameplans were confounded by their early goal affording them the luxury of sitting back and outside of their setpiece goal and Rose's poor backpass they really didn't threaten too much. But neither did we int he first half.

The 2nd Half began similar to the first but change ~55 minutes with the introduction of Janssen. Our improvement was not just down to his industry and effectiveness but other changes as well. Dropping Harry back to the 10 gave us someone else to 'play' in the midfield and it bore fruit immediately as he recieved a ball in the left halfspace and switched to Toby which lead to our 1st real chance of the game, a Dele skied effort. Harry's dropping connected our theretofore disjointed midfield.

The other change was the switch of Eriksen and Lamela to their orthodox wings thus providing natural advanced width and service into the more advanced Janssen. This also dropped the ineffective Dele into the CM2 (though his actually played slightly advanced of Wanyama). And the final tactical change was the driving of the ball forward by our CBs. This caused overloads in familiar areas for us and disrupted their defensive lines.

As @Bus-Conductor has mentioned one of the posibilities Poch could have utilized was a formation shift to a 433 from our 4231. Presumably our formation would have looked like this then:

With the personnel at hand I am not sure how that change would have benefited us. Gueye was chomping at Eriksen like a rottweiler on a postman's so I doubt that his threat would have improved in a more congested center. Holgate was able to match Dele's athleticism and physicality and with no threat in behind nor the ability to beat a man his threat would have remained nonexistent. From the left Lamela comes in to add to the midfield which would have remained congested and without the numerical advantage of bombing FBs. This is all assuming that Koeman did not respond by altering to another formation.

What I believe the best formational change that could have occured in the 1st half was what was employed in the Soton game and many other times throughout last season when facing 2 strikers or a high press and that was to drop Dier into a back 5.

This would have:
  1. improved the starting position of the FBs higher up the pitch with less defensive responsibility
  2. kept our man advantage at the back while opening our normal passing lanes
  3. increased the distance the Everton forwards had to close down
  4. decrease the vertical stretch of our formation that was effectively cut in two by their midfield 4 limiting our play on the ground
  5. Moved our players starting positions into free space instead of marked space thereby making our play less predictable and forcing their defenders to make decisions
  6. placed similar numbers of players in similar positions to press like our base formation
I believe this should have been the formation we switched to in the first half to tighten things up and to improve our play going forward. As such I do believe that the Janssen sub was about the only sub Poch could have made, considering that bench, that could change the game. So I don't really give him credit for that one. The other changes he deserves full credit for and had we won maybe even a little extra credit.
Click to expand...



Good stuff, as I said in the ratings thread, I actually watched when Janssen came on, Pochettino giving Lamela instructions, and previously I have hated seeing him switched out to the left because he is not an orthodox winger, and it wasn't in response to the type of tactical conundrum we faced last week, but I realised that what he was doing was taking back control of the wide areas, Combined with putting Janssen up top so now there was no longer two covering CB's to back up the wide players (Mcarthy/Baines) now Gueye and Barry were being pulled wide to hep the wide players, this meant for the first time our CM's could get on the ball more.

As you allude to earlier in the piece the structure/formation is one facet, the other is the players used within that structure and then another is the application of those players.

I think we got all three facets wrong at the start on Saturday and Koeman got almost everything right. Whilst I would like to see us switch and use 433 at times - because I think it would suit our personnel to do so at times as well as making us less predictable - and I think even that, if used with the right personnel could have immediately thrown Koeman's plans off sync. Something like:

Winks/Alli Wanyama Onomah/Winks

Lamela Janssen/Kane Eriksen

Would have meant the high press was less effective as there would have been three CM's with two dynamic ones always looking for the ball, this would have sucked one of Barry or Gueye forward and then created more space for FB's and the inverted AM's to get on the ball. It also meant we'd have a CM available to bomb on from deeper, harder to pick up positions.

But I also would not have been adverse to your in game idea of matching up and going 532. Conte stumbled into Juve's (multi title winning) 532 by trying to match up Mazzarri's Inter 532 in a game a few years back. Pochettino even did it (about his only tactical deviation last season) against Watford to try and counter their 2 striker system.

The only problem with that for me is your application of the personnel, in game I would be more tempted to move Alli back and keep Lamela or Eriksen in the forward zone. More like:

TA --------- Dier -------- JV
Walker --------------------------- Rose
Alli -- Wanyama - Eriksen
Lamela
----------Kane

​
 
heelspurs

heelspurs

Le filet mignon est un bastion de rosbif
Jul 25, 2012
4,270
5,105
Bus-Conductor said:
I actually watched when Janssen came on, Pochettino giving Lamela instructions
Click to expand...

Didn't notice this during the game but did during repeat viewing. My questions is why wasn't this said at halftime? Additionally, we are in our 3rd year with Poch and our base structure should be ingrained by now. Our players should also know when and into what formation to move to counter the pressure. Or it should be able to be signaled from the bench instead of wasting a whole half in futile cycle.

Whilst I would like to see us switch and use 433 at times - because I think it would suit our personnel to do so at times as well as making us less predictable - and I think even that, if used with the right personnel could have immediately thrown Koeman's plans off sync. Something like:

Winks/Alli Wanyama Onomah/Winks

Lamela Janssen/Kane Eriksen
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe my objection to this in this game was partially Everton's formation/tactics and also the personnel on the field in the 1st half. Winks and Onomah qualities do lend themselves to this but I have reservations about Dele receiving the ball in midfield under pressure as well as his subsequent usage of it. Hopefully we try it in a league cup game.

The only problem with that for me is your application of the personnel, in game I would be more tempted to move Alli back and keep Lamela or Eriksen in the forward zone. More like:

TA --------- Dier -------- JV
Walker --------------------------- Rose
Alli -- Wanyama - Eriksen
Lamela
----------Kane​
Click to expand...

I was iffy on who to drop but decided that Lamela and Eriksen were better to receive and lay the ball in the MF and Dele threat in behind would help stretch the defense. But wouldn't be opposed to this setup either. Heck it could hardly turn out worse than the actual 1st half did.
 
Bus-Conductor

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
Bus-Conductor said:
I think this is something both @mpickard2087 and I were a minority voice in last season. I think Pochettino made risk averse personnel choices to compensate for not teaching more ambitious players to be more defensively diligent.

I think rather than work hard improving and developing the defensive aspect with Bentaleb, who imo is a better footballer in terms of tempo and ambition than Dembele, or playing Winks next to Wanyama this season, he has preferred the belt and braces.

Now many will point to our results last season and say these choices were valid, and they will have a strong case, some games it definitely paid a dividend, and compensated for a careless front 4 and attacking fb's, but I think sometimes I think it was a bit lazy tactically and there was room for a more ambitious approach, I think it would have been a defensive strength as well as an offensive one at times because there were so many lost points through our cm's stopping showing and getting on the ball or being able to capitalise on sections of games when we were in counter attack mode, we'd also have the option in games we need to protect of bringing Dembele or Dier in or even moving Dembele up into the AM zone.
Click to expand...

THFCSPURS19 said:
As you say, poorly timed. That was atrocious defending from Liverpool.
Click to expand...

I think it was still a good example tonight - as was Guardiola's (Silva/Debruyne) CM3 - different tactics but still a similar concept - you teach offensive ambitious players what to do without the ball, rather trying to teach defensive, risk averse players what to do with it. If Sherwood had picked those kind of midfields we'd have all pissed ourselves, because we'd know it wasn't backed with any coached tactical application - just a fucking throw of the dice. But Klopp actually had Lallana, Henderson and Wjnaldum running around like fucking busy ****s, Cheslea, at home, barely got a sniff all night.
 
Last edited:
Bus-Conductor

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
Last weekend we also saw more evidence of an theme I've mentioned several times re the 4231 v 433 and adapting structure to suit players. Last season I used it a lot in reference to Alli, and used Pogba of the highest profile example of this type of player, who despite being better than Alli is still fallible in a CM2, we once again saw this fallibility of Pogba played in a CM2 on saturday (as we did in the Euros). I don't think I've ever seen a more tactically inept Mourinho than the clusterfuck he made of that game against City.

Up against a coach he knows will flood midfield with footballers, play a 433 that is often a 253, with a high line, Mourinho picks a CM2 of Pogba and fucking Fellani with Rooney ambling about like a fucking stewed prune in moulinex hairdryer and Lingard tripping over the ball with Mykhitaria as a right winger. Surely he needed to go 433, with three fucking busy footballing ****s in the CM3 and have at least one of Martial or Rashford to exploit City's high line. When questioned after the game about his selection he went off on one of his naval gazing mumbles, blaming the players, it was embarrassing.
 
heelspurs

heelspurs

Le filet mignon est un bastion de rosbif
Jul 25, 2012
4,270
5,105
Bus-Conductor said:
Last weekend we also saw more evidence of an theme I've mentioned several times re the 4231 v 433 and adapting structure to suit players. Last season I used it a lot in reference to Alli, and used Pogba of the highest profile example of this type of player, who despite being better than Alli is still fallible in a CM2, we once again saw this fallibility of Pogba played in a CM2 on saturday (as we did in the Euros). I don't think I've ever seen a more tactically inept Mourinho than the clusterfuck he made of that game against City.

Up against a coach he knows will flood midfield with footballers, play a 433 that is often a 253, with a high line, Mourinho picks a CM2 of Pogba and fucking Fellani with Rooney ambling about like a fucking stewed prune in moulinex hairdryer and Lingard tripping over the ball with Mykhitaria as a right winger. Surely he needed to go 433, with three fucking busy footballing ****s in the CM3 and have at least one of Martial or Rashford to exploit City's high line. When questioned after the game about his selection he went off on one of his naval gazing mumbles, blaming the players, it was embarrassing.
Click to expand...
all good points but is this more evidence of a contractual obligation to field Rooney. I know it's kind of a tin foil hat conspiracy theory going around but Jenas did say that VdV had it in his spurs contract. Point being the only way to fit rooney into a top team with the least detrimental effect is to play 4231 with him in the 10. Although I have never been a fan of his even in his pomp he is presently a hindrance to ManU (long may it continue).

I say this because surely you would feel that mou would realize that Pogba is not a DM. And I say this knowing full well the irony of our own manager not realizing/making the same mistake with Dele.
 
Bus-Conductor

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
heelspurs said:
all good points but is this more evidence of a contractual obligation to field Rooney. I know it's kind of a tin foil hat conspiracy theory going around but Jenas did say that VdV had it in his spurs contract. Point being the only way to fit rooney into a top team with the least detrimental effect is to play 4231 with him in the 10. Although I have never been a fan of his even in his pomp he is presently a hindrance to ManU (long may it continue).

I say this because surely you would feel that mou would realize that Pogba is not a DM. And I say this knowing full well the irony of our own manager not realizing/making the same mistake with Dele.
Click to expand...

That must be bollocks about VDV because he said himself AVB told him he wouldn't be an automatic choice.

I do not believe that Rooney - or any player - would be afforded such a contractual clause in this day and age - if true, whoever signed off on it needs to be publicly tarred and feathered.
 
THFCSPURS19

THFCSPURS19

The Speaker of the Transfer Rumours Forum
Jan 6, 2013
37,891
130,525
jonathanhotspur said:
Pochettino calls his new Spurs tactical decision 'the future'


By Alasdair Gold

"The design to play was not only today - same with CSKA Moscow and Middlesbrough - one holding midfielder. The future and the project of the team is to play with one [holding midfielder]."

Read more at http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co....771474-detail/story.html?#oIqtl5ZIt7ikzqrf.99
Click to expand...
Well, that's confirmed it for me. Poch playing 4-2-3-1 the last 2 seasons was just to piss off @Bus-Conductor .
 
mpickard2087

mpickard2087

Patient Zero
Jun 13, 2008
21,893
32,577
faze_coys

faze_coys

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2010
3,177
4,896
C

ComfortablyNumb

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2011
4,014
6,172
faze_coys said:
music to my ears!! Glad he realised how blunt we were with dier and wanyama
Click to expand...
I think we'll see a Dier/Wanyama combination start games again this season (if only because of injuries and suspensions), but one of them will be asked to play further forward.
 
Bus-Conductor

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
Cravenspurs said:
I have always supported the Wanyama rumors as he is a beast. He has limitations, but he is a great shield.

But I am guilty of favoriting Dier. I like the Dembele/Dier..sacrilege part. I think the energy around that last year was special and the idea of breaking that up was hard.

If Poch plays both Dembele and Wanyama I hope we keep the shape and have Eriksen drop deeper. Dembele pressing up the pitch in place of Sissoko is my preferred form. I love Dembele playing up the pitch and winning the ball back.
Click to expand...

Maybe my post didn't make it clear (I've edited now so that it is) but I actually never shared the belief that to break the Dier/Dembele partnership was sacralidge, I was very much of the opinion that we should, and as soon as I saw Wanyama at Everton I realised we'd signed a player who might make that possible, as he is far more dynamic defensively than Dier and allows that defensive/offensive balance compromise.

After the first few games I thought my worst fears were being reslised with the Dier/Wanyama 4231, but the last three games have tactically tickled me in all the right places, I've seen elements of things I've been hoping to see for a long time. Some tactical diversity, one very busy hunter matched up with one or two less risk averse footballing options.

I spent the first few weeks of the season saying Pochettino has got to show some tactical bollocks, teach offensive players defensive discipline rather than trying to get defensive players to be risk averse or creative (as per my post above).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mawspurs
Ange believes Spurs ‘heading in right direction’ despite dropping points against West Ham
Replies
0
Views
160
mawspurs
mawspurs
fishhhandaricecake
Lets talk emotions, Spurs ups and downs
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
HodisGawd
HodisGawd
sidford
Lack of leadership
Replies
11
Views
1K
newbie
N
Top