Tottenham's tactics too cautious to win title, says Robbie Savage

[SlunkSoma]

41221 at home for me, with possibly having Lennon and Townsend as wingers on their correct sides as oppose to inside forwards. Sandro behind Paulinho and Eriksen/Holtby.

Happy with 4231 away.

 

[dagraham]

Playing a high line and pressing the opposition as close to their own goal as possible is not negative.

So, by your logic teams that sit back, soak up pressure and play on the counter attack are negative? Does that include the United teams of the mid 90's, the Arsenal teams with Henry etc?

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Just because we play a high line and squeeze the play doesn't mean we aren't negative or too cautious. I remember a certain George Graham advocating a high pressing game.

We refuse to play more than one striker in any match. Even against teams who repeatedly get everyone behind the ball with no intention of winning the game. That's negative in my book.

If you take a freeze frame snapshot of us with the ball in the opponents final third, there is usually only one or two players in or around the box. Again, that's negative.

Its all very well trying to control possession but we seem to me to be trying to strangle the game from the outset, not take many risks and hope to nick it.

Again, negative imo.

 

[CheeseGromit]

The league is not one in the first half of the season only lost

It is a very changed team so the important thing is to be in the right place after Christmas. AVB looks to me to be preparing for the 2nd half of the race when there will be a strong challenge and the football will be free - r than now

 

[Klinsmannesque]

Agree with most but simply saying Eriksen and Defoe are solutions shows he can only point out the glaringly obvious. The issue IMO is the 1 dimensional inverted winger AVB insists on playing for the full 90mins. Crowds the middle slows the play. I wish he would have switch Andros and Lennon, so we stretch defenses and create space for the central players. We're too easy to defend against, as long as you are organised you are relatively trouble free.

 

[Spurs 1961]

Agree with most but simply saying Eriksen and Defoe are solutions shows he can only point out the glaringly obvious. The issue IMO is the 1 dimensional inverted winger AVB insists on playing for the full 90mins. Crowds the middle slows the play. I wish he would have switch Andros and Lennon, so we stretch defenses and create space for the central players. We're too easy to defend against, as long as you are organised you are relatively trouble free.

Why stop at the 1 dimensional inverted winger. Our whole game is one dimensional yet I do believe we have players who can do a lot more. Are we seeing in a differnt way what happened at Chelsea? AVB sidelined the experienced players who had years of tactical nous from the playing side. Is AVB unable to get players involved in developing his methods? Is it do it my way or no way?

Just a thought

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

So, by your logic teams that sit back, soak up pressure and play on the counter attack are negative? Does that include the United teams of the mid 90's, the Arsenal teams with Henry etc?

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Just because we play a high line and squeeze the play doesn't mean we aren't negative or too cautious. I remember a certain George Graham advocating a high pressing game.

We refuse to play more than one striker in any match. Even against teams who repeatedly get everyone behind the ball with no intention of winning the game. That's negative in my book.

If you take a freeze frame snapshot of us with the ball in the opponents final third, there is usually only one or two players in or around the box. Again, that's negative.

Its all very well trying to control possession but we seem to me to be trying to strangle the game from the outset, not take many risks and hope to nick it.

Again, negative imo.

Negative tactics are erecting a wall of players in your own half and not letting the opposition pass. We press high up the pitch to win the ball nearer the opposition goal with the aim to catch them on the back foot and create chances. I admit at the moment we are not playing instinctively enough to carve out good chances but this will come.

Don't ever say playing one striker is a negative tactic. Barcelona, Arsenal, Bayern Munich, Dortmund all play with 1 striker - are they negative as well?

 

[dagraham]

Negative tactics are erecting a wall of players in your own half and not letting the opposition pass. We press high up the pitch to win the ball nearer the opposition goal with the aim to catch them on the back foot and create chances. I admit at the moment we are not playing instinctively enough to carve out good chances but this will come.

Don't ever say playing one striker is a negative tactic. Barcelona, Arsenal, Bayern Munich, Dortmund all play with 1 striker - are they negative as well?

Those teams don't need to play more than one striker as their movement and speed of play is light years ahead of us.

I am not advocating playing two strikers all the time but against all the mid-table teams who as you say erect a wall of players, leaving Soldado on his own up front against 5 or 6 defenders is not going to work. What have we got to lose playing an additional striker? We might run the risk of them breaking on us but we should be confident of outscoring Hull at home.

As for the teams you mentioned. Of course they are not negative but the only PL team there is Arsenal and even Wenger realizes that to play up front on your own in the PL you need physical presence.

We are not Barcelona, Dortmund, Bayern or Arsenal. And we are not likely to be if we continue to be risk averse, with a snail like build up and an emphasis on athleticism over passing ability.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

So, by your logic teams that sit back, soak up pressure and play on the counter attack are negative? Does that include the United teams of the mid 90's, the Arsenal teams with Henry etc?

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Just because we play a high line and squeeze the play doesn't mean we aren't negative or too cautious. I remember a certain George Graham advocating a high pressing game.

We refuse to play more than one striker in any match. Even against teams who repeatedly get everyone behind the ball with no intention of winning the game. That's negative in my book.

If you take a freeze frame snapshot of us with the ball in the opponents final third, there is usually only one or two players in or around the box. Again, that's negative.

Its all very well trying to control possession but we seem to me to be trying to strangle the game from the outset, not take many risks and hope to nick it.

Again, negative imo.

But that ManU team didn't just do that, listen to anyone, including Ferguson himself and you will know that he valued possession more than anything, and pressing the opponent, all over the pitch. His teams just had the ability to counter at pace as well.

Arsenal never sat deep as a philosophy, they dominated the ball when they had Henry etc. But like United they had the pace and wit to counter devastatingly when the situation arose.

Playing one striker isn't negative, it completely depends on the tactics and tactical deployment of personnel. We play with four "attacking" players, plus a cm with license to get in the box. And we press and attack teams and try to win games.

What is the point of playing two strikers needing service and reducing the capability to service them by removing a creative player to service them and reducing our ability to have the ball to create anything (which we would do because every team we play will outnumber us in midfield)

Negative is a philosophy, it's devoting the majority of your tactical deployment to negate the strengths of the opposition. We don't do this. We don't always succeed in attacking and dominating, but we are in the top two ball dominant teams in the league. Defensive parsimony is a by-product of this, not's it's raison d'être.

We have actually improved our "box presence" this season, we now have a cm who frequently bombs into the box as well as players like Sigurdsson, Chadli (scored high teens last season in Holland), Eriksen, Lamela (eventually).

We aren't doing it well enough or clever enough yet, but do you really expect 4/5 new attacking players to gel instantly ?

 

[dagraham]

But that ManU team didn't just do that, listen to anyone, including Ferguson himself and you will know that he valued possession more than anything, and pressing the opponent, all over the pitch. His teams just had the ability to counter at pace as well.

Arsenal never sat deep as a philosophy, they dominated the ball when they had Henry etc. But like United they had the pace and wit to counter devastatingly when the situation arose.

Playing one striker isn't negative, it completely depends on the tactics and tactical deployment of personnel. We play with four "attacking" players, plus a cm with license to get in the box. And we press and attack teams and try to win games.

What is the point of playing two strikers needing service and reducing the capability to service them by removing a creative player to service them and reducing our ability to have the ball to create anything (which we would do because every team we play will outnumber us in midfield)

Negative is a philosophy, it's devoting the majority of your tactical deployment to negate the strengths of the opposition. We don't do this. We don't always succeed in attacking and dominating, but we are in the top two ball dominant teams in the league. Defensive parsimony is a by-product of this, not's it's raison d'être.

We have actually improved our "box presence" this season, we now have a cm who frequently bombs into the box frequently as well as players like Sigurdsson, Chadli (scored high teens last season in Holland), Eriksen, Lamela (eventually).

We aren't doing it well enough or clever enough yet, but do you really expect 4/5 new attacking players to gel instantly ?

I have no problem with dominating the ball but only if we can do something with it. As you say, those Arsenal and Utd teams could both dominate in the opponents half (with the required penetration after working the oppostion to create the spaces) and hit on the counter attack. At the moment we do neither.

I understand what your saying about two strikers but it doesn't have to be a bog standard 4-4-2. As you say, the success of playing one striker depends on tactics and personnel. For me, Soldado is simply the wrong type of striker to deploy this system in the PL and I don't believe it will greatly improve in this regard even when we gel.

As for the box presence, having a front line (whether one or two strikers) which can hold the ball up is key imo to utilizing the late runners into the box.

AVB does deserve time and patience and while we are getting results its not a major issue, but there are things like off the ball movement (as a team not just one or two players) which I expected to see improve in his tenure which I simply haven't seen in the time he's been here.

 

[CowInAComa]

I need to hear the need to gel argument again. What ever happened to it.

Also what happened to players being out injured with hernias. Never happens anymore.

 

[Deleted member 26368]

'They have had more shots (133)...' I reckon Andros has had at least 125 of those

 

[idontgetit]

Playing a high line and pressing the opposition as close to their own goal as possible is not negative.

We use the high line for possession stats and defence. We hardly use it in an attacking sense, trying to turn the ball over high up the pitch and hit out of position defences. Possession without intent is meaningless to me, I swear we look as tired trying to hold on to the ball as teams look chasing it down

 

[CowInAComa]

I have no problem with dominating the ball but only if we can do something with it. As you say, those Arsenal and Utd teams could both dominate in the opponents half (with the required penetration after working the oppostion to create the spaces) and hit on the counter attack. At the moment we do neither.

I understand what your saying about two strikers but it doesn't have to be a bog standard 4-4-2. As you say, the success of playing one striker depends on tactics and personnel. For me, Soldado is simply the wrong type of striker to deploy this system in the PL and I don't believe it will greatly improve in this regard even when we gel.

As for the box presence, having a front line (whether one or two strikers) which can hold the ball up is key imo to utilizing the late runners into the box.

AVB does deserve time and patience and while we are getting results its not a major issue, but there are things like off the ball movement (as a team not just one or two players) which I expected to see improve in his tenure which I simply haven't seen in the time he's been here.

We arent comparable to the title winning sides of Utd and Arsenal. They had 3 gears they could go to above our top gear.

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

Those teams don't need to play more than one striker as their movement and speed of play is light years ahead of us.

I am not advocating playing two strikers all the time but against all the mid-table teams who as you say erect a wall of players, leaving Soldado on his own up front against 5 or 6 defenders is not going to work. What have we got to lose playing an additional striker? We might run the risk of them breaking on us but we should be confident of outscoring Hull at home.

As for the teams you mentioned. Of course they are not negative but the only PL team there is Arsenal and even Wenger realizes that to play up front on your own in the PL you need physical presence.

We are not Barcelona, Dortmund, Bayern or Arsenal. And we are not likely to be if we continue to be risk averse, with a snail like build up and an emphasis on athleticism over passing ability.

No one is saying our current lack of creativity and movement is okay but what I see is AVB putting in strong foundations to allow these to flourish further along our development. Movement and and instinctive play in the final third is the hardest part to coach and will typically evolve as players get used to each other.

Its the the principles of dominating possession and high pressing which is allowing us to pick up so many points right now. The attacking play will develop in time.

 

[Bobbins]

Well done Robbie.
usually i think you a twat without a brain.
But you have hit the nail on the head.
The front 3 AM are not creating anything.
MOTD 2 hartson banging on about Defoe, should be playing.
Yeah try watching some games he has played in the league and then say hes better.

That Hartson rant about Defoe was acutely embarrassing - the worst thing about it is that loads of clueless fans (both Spurs and non-Spurs) will have listened to it and agreed with him - I'm forever seeing comments from other fans about why are we not playing Defoe etc, it's constantly getting texted into the BBC on their live coverage online.

All this 'when he starts, he scores!' nonsense we used to get with Pav. Well he didn't fucking score against West Ham, in fact he missed a chance Soldado almost certainly would've put away to win us the game before the nightmare began. And Hartson says all this after Defoe was yet again utter junk against Hull last week.

Hartson should be banned from all future punditry purely for that Defoe nonsense, which was some of the most retarted, ill-informed and based-on-not-actually-watching-us-or-Defoe-play bullshit I've ever heard on TV.

 

[sloth]

This is Whoscore's rating algorithm's calculation of team's qualities/styles. I've highlighted in pink the common qualities which could be relevant to this discussion. Basically it seems that when it comes to scoring goals a dominating style of play needn't be a limiting factor, nor are inverted wingers, or playing only one striker, or whatever, what we seem to be lacking compared to Europe's best teams is the team dynamic necessary to create through-balls and/or through-ball opportunities. In other words we're either not making the runs/movements of the ball, and/or we're not seeing/attempting the passes.

City

• Possession football
• Control the game in the opposition's half
• Short passes
• Attempt through balls often
• Attack through the middle
• Rotate their first eleven

Arsenal

• Short passes
• Attempt through balls often
• Possession football
• Control the game in the opposition's half
• Attacking down the right
• Aggressive

Liverpool

• Attempt through balls often
• Attacking down the right
• Short passes
• Consistent first eleven
• Non-aggressive

Bayern

• Short passes
• Possession football
• Control the game in the opposition's half
• Attacking down the right
• Attempt through balls often
• Non-aggressive
• Rotate their first eleven
• Play the offside trap

Dortmund

• Control the game in the opposition's half
• Take a lot of shots
• Attempt through balls often
• Possession football
• Attack through the middle
• Attacking down the right
• Short passes
• Non-aggressive

Barcelona

• Possession football
• Short passes
• Attempt through balls often
• Control the game in the opposition's half
• Attack through the middle
• Non-aggressive
• Rotate their first eleven
• Opponents play aggressively against them

Atletico

• Take a lot of shots
• Short passes
• Attempt through balls often
• Control the game in the opposition's half
• Attacking down the left
• Opponents play aggressively against them

Napoli

• Short passes
• Attempt through balls often
• Possession football
• Attack through the middle
• Attacking down the left
• Non-aggressive
• Rotate their first eleven

Juve

• Control the game in the opposition's half
• Attack through the middle
• Short passes
• Possession football
• Attempt through balls often

Spurs

• Possession football
• Attacking down the right
• Take long shots
• Control the game in the opposition's half
• Play the offside trap
• Consistent first eleven
• Opponents play aggressively against them

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

I need to hear the need to gel argument again. What ever happened to it.

Also what happened to players being out injured with hernias. Never happens anymore.

I think it got forgotten along with the 'AVB is a defensive coach who only wants us to keep the ball and not score' argument.

 

[CowInAComa]

I think it got forgotten along with the 'AVB is a defensive coach who only wants us to keep the ball and not score' argument.

Thats because AvB owned it. Mission achieved.

 

[dagraham]

We arent comparable to the title winning sides of Utd and Arsenal. They had 3 gears they could go to above our top gear.

Agree but I wasn't comparing them.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I have no problem with dominating the ball but only if we can do something with it. As you say, those Arsenal and Utd teams could both dominate in the opponents half (with the required penetration after working the oppostion to create the spaces) and hit on the counter attack. At the moment we do neither.

But just because we aren't doing it well doesn't mean we aren't trying to do it. We have players designed to facilitate both (direct break type players Townsend, Lennon, Chadli) and the more craft type (Eriksen, Sigurdsson, Holtby, Lamela).

The problem isn't "negativity". AVB isn't trying not to score goals, the players aren't trying to not create chances, it is the reverse. AVB's philosophy is clearly designed to attack the opposition and win games.

For various reason's we just aren't doing it well enough, or not well enough to cope with teams that are actually devoting the majority of their tactical deployment to purely stopping us.

We signed good players in the summer but I think we got carried away thinking we'd signed world class ready to roll players. 4 of the attacking players have never played this league before. three of them are very young. Then we have a young Townsend having his first season with us proper.

Throw in two new CM's and you can understand, I hope, why it's not a lack of attacking ambition we are suffering from mainly, but a lack of cohesion.

I think AVB hasn't always helped with his selection and subs, but agains, but generally I think his bad subs have been overly attacking in philosophy (Lennon on at Villa, Defoe on against Hull etc) but have had the reverse effect in reality.

Again, it's not a "negativity" problem but a tactical one.


This isn't what people want to hear but we have effectively upgraded almost the whole team in 18 months, I think it will take more than a few weeks, maybe a season, before we settle down, realise our best combinations for the various situations and for those new players (especially the ones to this league) to truly bed in and feel comfortable and confident to express themselves properly.

Good recent example is ManC. We pipped them to 4th after they had started their massive spending spree. Their players needed time to settle and adjust, their new manager also.