Team v West Brom

[St José Dominguez]

Lloris
Alderweireld Vertonghen
Wanyama Dembele
Walker Dele Eriksen Rose
Son Kane

Vorm, Trippier, Wimmer, Dier, Sissoko, N'Koudou, Winks​

 

[nicdic]

There's nothing weird about it. Our full-backs have been our main source of width and a big source of our attacking dynamism throughout Pochettino's tenure. At the start of the season a few teams played against us with 4-3-3 formations (Everton and Liverpool in particular) and this stopped our full-backs from getting forward as we were being outnumbered in midfield and we couldn't afford to leave our centre-backs isolated against a 3-pronged attack. It meant we couldn't get the full-backs involved in attack and we struggled to get a foothold in those games until the last half hour.

We've therefore changed the full-backs to wing-backs and the extra man in defence allows Rose and Walker to start higher up the pitch without leaving us as exposed defensively. Also by stretching the game horizontally there is more space centrally and in the channels for Eriksen to affect the game.

It won't always be the most effective way to set up - especially against teams who park the bus as we probably won't need 3 CBs - but it gives us a solution to the problems we faced against Everton and Liverpool in particular, and the 2nd half at Stamford Bridge.

I've already shown that this doesn't really seem to be the case.

The point about it maybe making the middle less congested and thus stretching the game could be valid, but we don't get Rose and Walker further forward in a three at the back, if anything they've played higher in a back a four.

 

[tommo84]

I've already shown that this doesn't really seem to be the case.

The point about it maybe making the middle less congested and thus stretching the game could be valid, but we don't get Rose and Walker further forward in a three at the back, if anything they've played higher in a back a four.

Maybe not start higher up, but it certainly gives them more freedom going forward as the 3-man defence offers more cover in the channels than a central 2 would in a back 4. The key impact of the change is that its more difficult for an opposition team to pin back the source of our width and pace by going with a front 3 themselves. In doing so, what appears like a more defensive formation by adding a third centre-back can actually make us more dynamic in attack.

 

[Nerine]

No match thread yet??

 

[nicdic]

Maybe not start higher up, but it certainly gives them more freedom going forward as the 3-man defence offers more cover in the channels than a central 2 would in a back 4. The key impact of the change is that its more difficult for an opposition team to pin back the source of our width and pace by going with a front 3 themselves. In doing so, what appears like a more defensive formation by adding a third centre-back can actually make us more dynamic in attack.

Not really. But OK.

 

[tiger666]

Maybe not start higher up, but it certainly gives them more freedom going forward as the 3-man defence offers more cover in the channels than a central 2 would in a back 4. The key impact of the change is that its more difficult for an opposition team to pin back the source of our width and pace by going with a front 3 themselves. In doing so, what appears like a more defensive formation by adding a third centre-back can actually make us more dynamic in attack.

We never really play with 2 centre backs. There's always a centre mid dropping back to form 3. Or rather, Jan and Toby pushing up either side.

 

[talkshowhost86]

Not really. But OK.

With an extra centre-back there will always be slightly less concern from Rose and Walker defensively.

It doesn't mean they play like wingers, and it may not alter their average position on the pitch (if we're going by statistics) but it means they can focus more on attack than defence, and it's clear that has been the case.

Either way it'll be interesting to see what we go with tomorrow. I can see the argument that we don't need three at the back against a sitting team, but at the same time against a team that will properly sit, Rose and Walker could potentially end up as part of the midfield meaning we're actually more attacking than normal.

It will also depend on how West Brom set up.

Whatever we go with, I'm just happy we've now got a bit of flexibility in our formation, as we were looking quite lumpen and lumbering before Christmas with our 4-2-3-1.

 

[nicdic]

With an extra centre-back there will always be slightly less concern from Rose and Walker defensively.

It doesn't mean they play like wingers, and it may not alter their average position on the pitch (if we're going by statistics) but it means they can focus more on attack than defence, and it's clear that has been the case.

Either way it'll be interesting to see what we go with tomorrow. I can see the argument that we don't need three at the back against a sitting team, but at the same time against a team that will properly sit, Rose and Walker could potentially end up as part of the midfield meaning we're actually more attacking than normal.

It will also depend on how West Brom set up.

Whatever we go with, I'm just happy we've now got a bit of flexibility in our formation, as we were looking quite lumpen and lumbering before Christmas with our 4-2-3-1.

No, I really don't think it does. It's a fallacy that is gaining a perception of truth because it's been repeated over and over. Re-watch the games and you'll see that Rose and Walker's game is exactly the same. They are forward no more, and back no less. The differences are elsewhere on the pitch.

 

[talkshowhost86]

No, I really don't think it does. It's a fallacy that is gaining a perception of truth because it's been repeated over and over. Re-watch the games and you'll see that Rose and Walker's game is exactly the same. They are forward no more, and back no less. The differences are elsewhere on the pitch.

I have watched all the games. It's clear their focus is more on attack.

 

[nicdic]

I have watched all the games. It's clear their focus is more on attack.

Just as it is in a back 4. It's not like Walker and Rose are Moses and Alonso, they are fullbacks.

 

[thekneaf]

3421 please.

It's not an overly defensive formation. Against Chelsea both Toby and Dier were marauding forward with the ball. It's dynamic, fits our players best strengths and other teams are baffled by it currently.

We played it against Villa, so we will be playing it against West Brom.

 

[tiger666]

We played it against Villa

And it was blunt until we changed to 4-2-3-1.

 

[Japhet]

With an extra centre-back there will always be slightly less concern from Rose and Walker defensively.

It doesn't mean they play like wingers, and it may not alter their average position on the pitch (if we're going by statistics) but it means they can focus more on attack than defence, and it's clear that has been the case.

Either way it'll be interesting to see what we go with tomorrow. I can see the argument that we don't need three at the back against a sitting team, but at the same time against a team that will properly sit, Rose and Walker could potentially end up as part of the midfield meaning we're actually more attacking than normal.

It will also depend on how West Brom set up.

Whatever we go with, I'm just happy we've now got a bit of flexibility in our formation, as we were looking quite lumpen and lumbering before Christmas with our 4-2-3-1.

It's also very easy for any of the 3 CBs to step up into midfield at any time which in turn allows a CM to push on. They are all very good with the ball at their feet.

 

[bubble07]

So looking at the 4 most recent games where Walker and Rose played here are their average positions...

View attachment 27903

In these games Walker's position is the same regardless, but Rose seems to get forward more when playing in a four. And we clearly have one player further back when playing a three...

Eriksen more advanced then dele and kane very surprising

 

[JayB]

While I expect that Dembele will start, IMO this is a match for Winks. We'll need to move the ball quickly to fashion chances and Dembele has largely been back to his old habits of dwelling on the ball this season.

 

[longtimespur]

Why not sit back with 2 banks of 4 and let them come on to us then hit them on the break.
We always struggle to break them down playing our normal game anyway,

 

[wingvaldsen]

Very attacking:

Walker - Toby - Verts - Rose
Dembele - Winks
Sissoko - Alli - Eriksen
Kane

 

[Wellspurs]

Very attacking:

Walker - Toby - Verts - Rose
Dembele - Winks
Sissoko - Alli - Son
Kane

No Eriksen? A bit of Nordic rivalry?

 

[wingvaldsen]

No Eriksen? A bit of Nordic rivalry?

Oh shoot, I meant to write Eriksen instead of Son.
Eriksen is one of my favourite players, so no nordic rivalry from me at least.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

What we get when moving from 3+1 in the attack to 2+1 is more room for the attackers to utilise. Rather than crowding an already crowded part of the pitch with our own players, we open up spaces which in turn can open up even more spaces by having fewer players there. Nobody is running on top of each other, and the attackers don't compete for space amongst themselves.

On the other side of the pitch, adding one CB makes for a tighter, firmer team. They need less space to cover, shorter and more accurate passes, and they move together closer with the CMs. In effect fewer errors of margin already.

Hence we open up space where that is needed, and close space where that is needed.