Underrated defence

[hellava_tough]

Something I've noticed over the last couple of seasons is that good, well organised defences tend not to get the credit they deserve from pundits and fans alike, especially when they significantly contribute to a match result.

This aspect of the game obviously isn't ignored completely by those discussing games, but post-match analysis usually doesn't dissect how the defence won the 3pts for the team in question.

Take last night's match report from the BBC for instance:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41216382

There's not one mention of the Spurs back 5 and goalie being rock-solid for most of the match, against one of the most formidable attacking sides in Europe.

This Guardian article is not much better either:

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...russia-dortmund-champions-league-match-report

Another piece of evidence is the pundits fawning over Liverpool and their title-challenging credentials in every pre-season build-up. There might be the odd 'perhaps their defence might not be as good as the rest', but it's usually followed by 'but they've got plenty of goals in them, so they'll be okay'. No they won't. A rock solid defence keeps you in contention when you're having a rough patch during periods of the game. It also helps you to see out games, where you're winning by a single goal.

Personally, I think the problem (and it's not just a Spurs-related problem) lies with the perception that possession and direct attacking play in the final third, equate to the attacking team being dominant; indeed, being the 'better side'. Sometimes this is the case, but not always.

If an attacking player makes a number of runs into the final third, but is always shepherded by the defender and nothing comes of it, then this is good defending. Likewise, if the ball is whipped into the 6 yard box and there are 2 or 3 defenders marking the 2 or 3 attacking players and nothing comes of it, then again this is good defending. And when a defender stretches or slides in to make a challenge, to nick the ball away from an attacker, this is usually seen as 'last-gasp' defending, but with such fine margins between success and failure at the elite level of the game, this should be seen as 'good defending'.

Anyway, I thought I'd post this to see what the rest of you think, because I can see us getting results against big teams this year, by sitting back and soaking up the pressure. And we'll probably have to listen to pundits and fans alike stating that 'Spurs rode their luck'.

We didn't.

We defended well.

 

[Dougal]

It's because Alan Hansen retired.

 

[lukespurs7]

Something I've noticed over the last couple of seasons is that good, well organised defences tend not to get the credit they deserve from pundits and fans alike, especially when they significantly contribute to a match result.

This aspect of the game obviously isn't ignored completely by those discussing games, but post-match analysis usually doesn't dissect how the defence won the 3pts for the team in question.

Take last night's match report from the BBC for instance:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41216382

There's not one mention of the Spurs back 5 and goalie being rock-solid for most of the match, against one of the most formidable attacking sides in Europe.

This Guardian article is not much better either:

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...russia-dortmund-champions-league-match-report

Another piece of evidence is the pundits fawning over Liverpool and their title-challenging credentials in every pre-season build-up. There might be the odd 'perhaps their defence might not be as good as the rest', but it's usually followed by 'but they've got plenty of goals in them, so they'll be okay'. No they won't. A rock solid defence keeps you in contention when you're having a rough patch during periods of the game. It also helps you to see out games, where you're winning by a single goal.

Personally, I think the problem (and it's not just a Spurs-related problem) lies with the perception that possession and direct attacking play in the final third, equate to the attacking team being dominant; indeed, being the 'better side'. Sometimes this is the case, but not always.

If an attacking player makes a number of runs into the final third, but is always shepherded by the defender and nothing comes of it, then this is good defending. Likewise, if the ball is whipped into the 6 yard box and there are 2 or 3 defenders marking the 2 or 3 attacking players and nothing comes of it, then again this is good defending. And when a defender stretches or slides in to make a challenge, to nick the ball away from an attacker, this is usually seen as 'last-gasp' defending, but with such fine margins between success and failure at the elite level of the game, this should be seen as 'good defending'.

Anyway, I thought I'd post this to see what the rest of you think, because I can see us getting results against big teams this year, by sitting back and soaking up the pressure. And we'll probably have to listen to pundits and fans alike stating that 'Spurs rode their luck'.

We didn't.

We defended well.

Great post. The reason Dortmund only hands few shots on target is because of our tactics combined with the individual and collective brilliance of the defence + Hugo, to limit Dortmund to that many chances is seriously impressive.

Hugo made a vital save at one point, aurier was physical and didn't let pulisic have it all his own way, Toby made 2/3 amazing 1v1 tackles running backwards, Sanchez was class, Jan made a vital interception and Davies was also solid, Dier did his bits also.

Football is about defence and attack and whist the best teams usually have good attacks you're completely right that defence is vitally important too, take Real Madrid for example everyone speaks about Isco, Ronaldo etc but forgets to mention in the CL final how imperitive Sergio Ramos and their other defenders are!!!

 

[hellava_tough]

It's because Alan Hansen retired.

Lol but also too true

That said there are still quite a few pundits who are ex-defenders kicking about

 

[dontcallme]

Good post.

Post match analysis is often very limited. Individual attacking performance takes the most praise. Analysis on the team's attacking shape goes little deeper than if there are players out wide.

Defensive shape gets little attention and unless a defender makes a last ditch tackle or stops a shot on the line they get almost no mention.

 

[kungfugrip]

I get

Good post.

Post match analysis is often very limited. Individual attacking performance takes the most praise. Analysis on the team's attacking shape goes little deeper than if there are players out wide.

Defensive shape gets little attention and unless a defender makes a last ditch tackle or stops a shot on the line they get almost no mention.

I get what you're saying but I already think there's too much analysis and not enough football being shown (especially MoTD and other highlights programmes). Hearing Martin Keown talk for two minutes on defensive shapes would bore me to death to be honest.

 

[dontcallme]

I get

I get what you're saying but I already think there's too much analysis and not enough football being shown (especially MoTD and other highlights programmes). Hearing Martin Keown talk for two minutes on defensive shapes would bore me to death to be honest.

I get bored just watching goals and the pundits discussing the ref's performance.

I want the pundits to be much more informative than they are.

 

[Japhet]

Something I've noticed over the last couple of seasons is that good, well organised defences tend not to get the credit they deserve from pundits and fans alike, especially when they significantly contribute to a match result.

This aspect of the game obviously isn't ignored completely by those discussing games, but post-match analysis usually doesn't dissect how the defence won the 3pts for the team in question.

Take last night's match report from the BBC for instance:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41216382

There's not one mention of the Spurs back 5 and goalie being rock-solid for most of the match, against one of the most formidable attacking sides in Europe.

This Guardian article is not much better either:

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...russia-dortmund-champions-league-match-report

Another piece of evidence is the pundits fawning over Liverpool and their title-challenging credentials in every pre-season build-up. There might be the odd 'perhaps their defence might not be as good as the rest', but it's usually followed by 'but they've got plenty of goals in them, so they'll be okay'. No they won't. A rock solid defence keeps you in contention when you're having a rough patch during periods of the game. It also helps you to see out games, where you're winning by a single goal.

Personally, I think the problem (and it's not just a Spurs-related problem) lies with the perception that possession and direct attacking play in the final third, equate to the attacking team being dominant; indeed, being the 'better side'. Sometimes this is the case, but not always.

If an attacking player makes a number of runs into the final third, but is always shepherded by the defender and nothing comes of it, then this is good defending. Likewise, if the ball is whipped into the 6 yard box and there are 2 or 3 defenders marking the 2 or 3 attacking players and nothing comes of it, then again this is good defending. And when a defender stretches or slides in to make a challenge, to nick the ball away from an attacker, this is usually seen as 'last-gasp' defending, but with such fine margins between success and failure at the elite level of the game, this should be seen as 'good defending'.

Anyway, I thought I'd post this to see what the rest of you think, because I can see us getting results against big teams this year, by sitting back and soaking up the pressure. And we'll probably have to listen to pundits and fans alike stating that 'Spurs rode their luck'.

We didn't.

We defended well.

In many respects the game v Dortmund reminded me of the Ali v Foreman fight in Zaire. Ali covered up on the ropes until Foreman had punched himself to a standstill. We covered up in the same way and Dortmund poured foreward but left themselves open to 2 quick counters where we scored. By the end they were out on their feet and we could have easily put 5 past them.

 

[Shadydan]

Not just pundits but fans alike are blinded by attacking football only and completely forget about the defending which is why people always get over excited with teams who sign attacking players every summer.

 

[davros]

I think there could be a couple of things that contribute to this:

1. We have a really effective attack and were the top scoring team last season. That is always more attractive to talk about (and way easier to analyse) than a mean defence, which is often misinterpreted as a poor attacking display from the opposition.

Kane is the best striker in the league and has grabbed headlines for three years now. Ali has been getting lots of attention since he joined. Eriksen and Son's contributions are well-known.

In short, pundits are more obsessed with what happens at the other end of the field.

2. We had a reputation for being soft and flimsy for so long that it seems inconceivable that Spurs are now the best defensive unit in the country. Many of the pundits played against us when we were more vulnerable at the back and less robust in the middle of the park.

Now we are strong all over the field, and it's simply taking former opposition PL players and journos who followed us through the 90s and early 2000s to highlight some of our strengths.

 

[hellava_tough]

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...s-league-borussia-dortmund-harry-kane-wembley

"Drags Tottenham to victory"?

This is exactly what I'm talking about

PS Kane is a legend though

 

[Spurger King]

I think the credit is there, it's just not usually highlighted as it's become taken for granted that we're strong at the back.

Sky regularly drew attention to our excellent defensive record in both of the previous seasons. When Walker left there were numerous articles talking about how unwise it was to break up the league's best back line. With Sanchez and Aurier just joining it's probably way too early for journalists to start praising the new setup.

I don't have an issue with it, as we really don't need any extra unwanted attention.

 

[-Afri-Coy-]

I've said it before and I'll say it again here, defending is the most overlooked aspect in modern football.

Casual Fans would rather have emphasis on the attacking aspects of football, and thus the pundits cater to that mindset, which is basically looking at a beer mug that's half full and being happy with it.

A solid defense can nullify any attacking formation or tactic, Celtic and co have done it before to the most attack centered team in the world (Barcelona), Hell even PSG made the mistake of not setting up properly in the return leg against Barca last season. These are just examples.

Mourinho loves a solid defense to grind out some wins by 1 goal margins, and he has titles to prove this works.

I have no idea why defense isn't considered as entertaining as attack in football, when you enjoy both aspects of the game, football as a sport has a whole new dimension to it for the viewer.

 

[muppetman]

TV coverage in particular - because watching people score is more exciting than watching people not score.

Sounds flippant but basically that's what it is - football is meant to be entertaining so TV will focus on those moments. I agree that defending and tactics are more interesting but it's not such an instant fix and that's what everyone seems to want - a quick adrenaline fix of goals and excitement.

 

[Tucker]

I get

I get what you're saying but I already think there's too much analysis and not enough football being shown (especially MoTD and other highlights programmes). Hearing Martin Keown talk for two minutes on defensive shapes would bore me to death to be honest.

I think a lot of the problem is that pundits often talk shite. If it's Gary Neville talking about the way teams cut out attacks then it can be great. If it's Martin Keown...not so much. MoTD and other highlight shows have to be dumbed down to a certain extent because they need to cram so much in and appeal to a wider audience. It would be nice if there was an option for a detailed analysis for each match on a Monday evening with Jenas for Spurs, someone else for the Scouser etc. In this on demand world, I don't see why it can't happen.

 

[ohtottenham!]

The idea of defence has always been unsexy. Defensively, we have it sorted better than any other PL team (City are close) with options of Aurier, Toby, Verts, Sanchez, Rose.

Defence as a springboard to attack is right there too! Having Aurier and Rose with their pace and link-up play down the flanks stretching the park, the option of using Sanchez to free up Verts to move forward into central attacking areas gives us threats against both good teams and against the bus parkers. All of that will give our CMs, Eriksen, Kane and Alli the space they need.

We have a really solid defence that also gives us a huge attacking threat! Having Foyth, KWP, Trippier, and Davies (who's stepped up incredibly and could challenge Rose's place) as rotational defensive choices is another great testament to Poch.

 

[Kiedis]

Guess it depends on the pundits. When I see English pundits, it often seems like they're suspicious of teams defending with a high line and unable to grasp the concept of catching people offside as a deliberate tactic. Gary Neville even admitted as much in regards to himself; he was brought up with coaches telling him that centre backs should drop to about the 16 yard bucks, get their full backs narrow and form a solid low block.

And these days, the best teams play with defenders comfortable with defending 1 v. 1 on the half way line in a way that would give his old coaches heart attacks. Neville is obviously one of the better pundits and he's wise enough to still try and develop his understanding of the game. But some of the old blokes that do the commentary on Spurs games really do my head in.