Villas Boas should stick to his guns rather than adapt (Part 2)

[InOffMeLeftShin]

Obviously our biggest issues at this point have been in attack and creating opportunities but this hasn’t meant that many journalists haven’t had criticisms about our defence too, with some even suggesting already that we are doomed for failure simply because the defensive system didn’t work at Chelsea (despite us not having issues with that in particular in our opening games). But the high line defence isn't necessarily disastrous, in fact it can facilitate a lot of attacking opportunities and should allow the attacking players to not have to come back too far, so that they are in dangerous positions when the play transitions from defence to attack. Obviously Chelsea didn't have the players to play it, Terry was too slow, Luiz was all over the place and Mikel isn't a good enough tackler and protector in the middle of the park considering he is such a negative player. They also didn't implement it very well.

What should have happened at Chelsea in theory with the way AVB set up the Porto team was that as the defence pushed up and the full backs went forwards, the two centre backs should split wider and Mikel should have dropped deeper into the defensive line. The CB's need to have good lateral movement and positioning, as well as awareness of the other two players otherwise big gaps start to appear. This is especially the case when the opposition transitions to attack, because even though the DM player has dropped deep he should own the territory in front of the defence and he should be ready to move forward to cut out any sparks of attack that are forming in the middle of the pitch.

We are fortunate that we have a player in Sandro that is excellent at positive defending, i.e. coming forward onto the player and making a challenge. One of the reasons (other than to have extra coverage in the backline) for the DM to drop deeper, is so that the play is happening in front of him and he is able to move forward to any position rather than being caught out. Note that the issues we’ve had late in the last two games have come when we haven’t been able to protect the area in front of the defence and have allowed the opposition to dictate the play and force us deeper. These occurred when Sandro was not on the pitch dominating defensively that zone.

The centre backs move wider, to cover an attack down the wings if the fullbacks are still chasing back. This is where the players have to have good lateral movement to come across and help cut that attack out (obviously in that case the DM slides into the vacant CB position). In Chelsea's case that would mean Terry or Luiz moving across to a full back area during an attack which obviously would be uncomfortable for them. In our case it could be Vertonghen moving left, or Kaboul (Gallas/Caulker) moving right and both of those players have played significant time in those areas of the pitch. The other advantage with Sandro is that he is one of the best headers of a ball for a central midfielder and he often gets himself under long balls, so attempted balls knocked over the top should be decently dealt with.


In the case where Sandro does push forward to get the ball because the play is coming down the middle, the two centre backs need to tighten to avoid having a huge gap through the middle. This happened way too often at Chelsea, Mikel wouldn't be in position, Luiz and Terry were too far apart and stranded up the pitch. Recipe for disaster. The centre backs and Sandro should almost be attached by a piece of string (like the dotted line). If Sandro moves forwards the CB's should remain the same distance from Sandro, which means they move closer together. If Vertonghen had to move left, they remain the same distance apart, Sandro moving to left of centre etc.

The high line allows us to win possession higher up the pitch meaning that a lot of the transition play collecting the ball from very deep and moving through the middle of the park isn’t as key as it was before because the ball has to travel a much shorter distance. Adding a player such as Dembele who is going to aid the defensive side of our teams game but also move with the ball after we have gained possession is vital and it should prove an area of strength for our side throughout the season. It was key for his Porto side to get themselves back on the attack quickly and if we can pull off the high tempo pressing in front of the high line it should see us suffocate opposition and spring attacks more regularly. It will be essential for us that his operates well as we have a lack of individual creativity after the transfer window and will rely on strong team play to generate attacks.


If one or more of the players don't buy into the system it doesn't work. Fernando did the DM role at Porto, but I don't think Mikel or Romeu were good enough to do it. If you have players incapable of doing the system and not buying into the system then it will likely fail. Of course the majority of the watching football world are already expecting it to fail, but we certainly have the players capable of playing the system that was so effective for Villas Boas in Porto. As Villas Boas has already admitted, we didn’t play well at the weekend and we have a lot of work to do on the training pitch in the next 2 weeks in order to make sure that we are ready to kick start our season. I certainly hope that the work begins with AVB going back to what he believes in and us being fully committed to it.

Playing with the 4-2-3-1 has been a useful stepping stone as it has allowed us to trial the resultant positions which the players end the attacking phase and start the defensive phase of the game, but by only following through with half measures we are failing to take advantage of our possession because we aren’t able to disrupt the opposition structure and create the mismatches we need. Now it is a case of drilling it so that it works perfectly, because we definitely have the players capable of playing it and the AVB system could well be something that takes our squad of talented players to the next level.

With patience and hard work I really see Tottenham Hotspur being a major force in the English game again and the steps that have been taken by all at the club show clear signs that the future is very bright despite what the media will lead you to believe.

 

[spud]

A very interesting piece, IOMLS; thanks for posting it. It will be interesting to observe how long (and perhaps whether) it takes AVB to fully implement this system, or if he continues to operate with 4-2-3-1.

 

[jolsnogross]

The short version is that the defensive midfielder is crucial. Which is no different to a 442 or a diamond midfield. Basically all formations that want to make the best use of attacking full backs (which is all formations with full backs) tend to require some discipline from the defensive midfielder to fill in any gaps from a potential counter attack. There nothing particularly beneficial to 433 in this respect.

The high defensive line seems very dodgy to me in English football, where turnover of possession happens at a very high rate. If the centre halves push up to tuck in behind Sandro, they'll leave acres behind them for quick premier league attackers to exploit. The release ball won't even have to be very accurate because there'll be such a large area to play it in to.

The other problem with such a high line is that it forces us to play in compressed space and we've just lost our two best players at close-quarters possession in Modric and VdV. Add to that Bale and Lennon having no space to run in to, even if they beat their man, and you soon realize that maybe we aren't so suited to a front-foot high-line of play. Certainly our defenders may be a bit quicker than Chelsea's, but you have to wonder if we are changing our attacking play in such a way as to minimize our potent weapons on the wing.

We'll see how it goes, but I'll settle for a bit more attacking ambition from AVB in the next few games compared to the cautious approach of the first three.

 

[InOffMeLeftShin]

quote="jolsnogross, post: 2999586, member: 4810"]The short version is that the defensive midfielder is crucial. Which is no different to a 442 or a diamond midfield. Basically all formations that want to make the best use of attacking full backs (which is all formations with full backs) tend to require some discipline from the defensive midfielder to fill in any gaps from a potential counter attack. There nothing particularly beneficial to 433 in this respect.
[/quote]

Sure, I absolutely agree with what you are saying. The defensive midfielder is crucial any time the full backs attack and even more so considering we will play the high line. My point is that much of the media claim that one of Chelseas biggest problems, the high line, will also be our biggest problem. But that isn't necessarily the case because we actually have players who are far more suited to playing it than they had at Chelsea.

I actually don't think we'll play a ridiculously high line so that we'll get completely opened up and that the media tend to make a meal out of this concept because Chelsea had troubles even when they weren't particularly high. It is important that we stick to it though as we've had the tendency over the last few years (and still have based on recent games) to drop deeper and deeper the longer the game goes on. We tend to cause our own problems in this respect and it has already kicked us in the balls twice in the first two home games and dropping deep and inviting the opposition on to us makes me far more nervous than us playing a high line.

 

[Gilzeanking]

Yeh , anything is better than the tendency to drop very deep . It was a horrible shock to see us do it in the last match like that (home to Norwich ffs). Open invitation for the opposition to score (and they regularly do)
I'm simply baffled that noone in the team or staff could put a stop to this suicidal , panicky behaviour at the time .

Not seen anything quite like it for a few seasons...happened under big Mart a lot I recall .

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Yeh , anything is better than the tendency to drop very deep . It was a horrible shock to see us do it in the last match like that (home to Norwich ffs). Open invitation for the opposition to score (and they regularly do)
I'm simply baffled that no one in the team or staff could put a stop to this suicidal , panicky behaviour at the time .

We didn't concede late goals in our last two matches as a result of dropping deep in open play. We conceded them because we gave away set pieces near our goal and had no defender capable of clearing the ball fully out of defence (which Dawson and Kaboul do very well). Gallas and especially Vertonghen have so far been chronically unable to get any length on their clearances when under pressure. The cumulative set-piece pressure situations that led to Norwich's and West Brom's goals would never have occurred if Kaboul or Dawson had been playing, because one of them would have hammered the ball miles out of defence.

As for the high line, I have two points. One is that we haven't really been playing it very much. Perhaps this is because Gallas is playing, but we played a consistent pressing high line in the first part of the second half against Norwich and in the latter part of the first half against West Brom - otherwise only in fits and starts.

The second point is that it doesn't work unless the additional possession that is won by pressing is then retained. Playing a high line is not a substitute for individuals closing down opponents, nor for accurate passing. Against Norwich, even when we were playing with a high line, our midfielders and wingers (except Dembélé) constantly lost the ball as a result of pressure from an opponent. That defeated the whole objective of the tactic, because we were unable to create pressure by retaining possession in Norwich's half. When Dembélé came on, this changed immediately and the centre of gravity of our possession moved about 8m up the pitch, leading eventually to our goal.

 

[Gilzeanking]

Ah yeh , I didn't mean Norwich , I meant West Brom. But if you think that allowing the oppo to approach our penalty area without hindrance for the last 20 mins had nothing to do with our defeat...and further that playing like that will lead to anything other than many more defeats ..

.. Then I disagree with you .

 

[pundits folly]

Come on guys, this is meant to be a place for angry young men to swear, speculate and generally abuse one another.

Informed debate over a carefully considered article has no place here.

 

[idontgetit]

Inofmeleftshin needs to stop writing these articles. And go join AVB's coaching staff immediately.

 

[Chris_D]

quote="jolsnogross, post: 2999586, member: 4810"]The short version is that the defensive midfielder is crucial. Which is no different to a 442 or a diamond midfield. Basically all formations that want to make the best use of attacking full backs (which is all formations with full backs) tend to require some discipline from the defensive midfielder to fill in any gaps from a potential counter attack. There nothing particularly beneficial to 433 in this respect.

Sure, I absolutely agree with what you are saying. The defensive midfielder is crucial any time the full backs attack and even more so considering we will play the high line. My point is that much of the media claim that one of Chelseas biggest problems, the high line, will also be our biggest problem. But that isn't necessarily the case because we actually have players who are far more suited to playing it than they had at Chelsea.

I actually don't think we'll play a ridiculously high line so that we'll get completely opened up and that the media tend to make a meal out of this concept because Chelsea had troubles even when they weren't particularly high. It is important that we stick to it though as we've had the tendency over the last few years (and still have based on recent games) to drop deeper and deeper the longer the game goes on. We tend to cause our own problems in this respect and it has already kicked us in the balls twice in the first two home games and dropping deep and inviting the opposition on to us makes me far more nervous than us playing a high line.[/quote]
We're playing a higher line than we were under HR but that needn't be a disaster for us. I always thought our old tactic was when we didn't have the ball to just sit back in our box and let the opposition do what they liked in the first twenty yards of our half and put challenges in later on. We have more defensive midfielders than Chelsea did and I'm hoping that we're better suited to AVB's tactics than they were. We have Scotty, Sandro and Livermore who can all do a good job there but Lampard was in charge of Chelski's midfield and that didn't work out.

 

[Bobbins]

Ah yeh , I didn't mean Norwich , I meant West Brom. But if you think that allowing the oppo to approach our penalty area without hindrance for the last 20 mins had nothing to do with our defeat...and further that playing like that will lead to anything other than many more defeats ..

.. Then I disagree with you .

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment - we didn't actually lose...

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

You can set up the team to play in whatever formation takes your fancy. All this talk of formations, wing-backs, high pressing game and tactical options count for nowt if we do not score. Scoring once against Norwich and WBA at home is embarrassing enough without suggesting that the magic bullet is hidden is a scripture that only AVB has tucked in his back pocket. I think (if memory serves me right) AVB's successful Porto side scored only fifty four goals in their Championship winning side, and that in fewer League games.

I have seen nothing of the pressing game that everyone drools about (aside from the first half against Red Bulls) that would suggest that Spurs will run sides ragged. What i have seen so far is a dis-organised bunch of talented players running around like headless chickens in the vain hope of playing in formations that they have not the experience or hope of adapting to.Time will tell but i miss the cut and thrust of the attacking Spurs that we have witnessed over the past three seasons.

God i hope that AVB gets this Spurs side playing a lot better, but the first three games have seen us poor in front of goal and weak at the back something that better sides than Norwich, WBA and Newcastle will exploit.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

...I have seen nothing of the pressing game that everyone drools about (aside from the first half against Red Bulls) that would suggest that Spurs will run sides ragged. What i have seen so far is a dis-organised bunch of talented players running around like headless chickens in the vain hope of playing in formations that they have not the experience or hope of adapting to.Time will tell but i miss the cut and thrust of the attacking Spurs that we have witnessed over the past three seasons.

Basically, I agree with you, but I would add the first half against Newcastle to your very short list. We played exactly the kind of pressing game that AVB is supposed to be promoting. Then we stopped, or perhaps Newcastle figured out how to make us stop, and we haven't seen it since, except for a couple of minutes at a time.

 

[Gilzeanking]

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment - we didn't actually lose...

True..more the metaphoric defeat you always feel when conceding very late.. to a supposedly 'smaller ' team after collapsing like a big girl's blouse for 20 minutes. ( actually big girl's blouses tend to be filled out ..hmmm well ,you know what I mean )

 

[jolsnogross]

Sure, I absolutely agree with what you are saying. The defensive midfielder is crucial any time the full backs attack and even more so considering we will play the high line. My point is that much of the media claim that one of Chelseas biggest problems, the high line, will also be our biggest problem. But that isn't necessarily the case because we actually have players who are far more suited to playing it than they had at Chelsea.

I actually don't think we'll play a ridiculously high line so that we'll get completely opened up and that the media tend to make a meal out of this concept because Chelsea had troubles even when they weren't particularly high. It is important that we stick to it though as we've had the tendency over the last few years (and still have based on recent games) to drop deeper and deeper the longer the game goes on. We tend to cause our own problems in this respect and it has already kicked us in the balls twice in the first two home games and dropping deep and inviting the opposition on to us makes me far more nervous than us playing a high line.

I think you might be overestimating our suitability for the magic system as opposed to Chelsea's. If anything, Mikel is a more disciplined water-carrier than Sandro because he isn't as good a ball player as Sandro. He has no ambition to move upfield, so he just sits as insurance for the full-backs to play higher up, whereas Sandro could be a giant of a box-to-box midfielder- our Roy Keane in his prime, so to speak. The second point is that Terry didn't fit the high line model, but it was criminally stupid to enforce it on him anyway since just plain defending is what Terry does very very well. We're in danger of making the same mistake at Spurs by not having Dawson out there commanding the back line.

I also think you are misdiagnosing the problems of our last two home games. DM already responded to two points about having defenders who can defend and clear effectively and that the tactic requires us to retain possession. But another aspect is that we didn't sit back and invite them on us, they got in behind us far too easily. That is a symptom of a high line, not an outcome of dropping deep. Their goals resulted from second balls from corners, and you can't exactly play a high line at a corner. And the play that led to corners was them getting in behind us - especially Norwich who had several occasions to play 3-4 passes and be in behind us.

The defensive line needs to use judgement on positioning and not be too deep off of attackers, nor right up on their shoulders. As Gaz said, we can talk about theory all we want, but we need to bring the best out of the players we have. If our defenders move up too close to the half way line, we'll just be allowing smart fast premier league attackers spin off into the space behind us. Defoe, Bale and Lennon would love to play against that system. Nobody is arguing that they should sit on the 18 yard line either, but we have international quality defenders who can defend sensibly if you let them.

 

[felmonger]

An interesting article, which must have taken hours of thought, and has given rise to mainly well thought out comments. Much centred on the importance of Sandro, but could Scotty Parker play the same role? He is still my bet to be club captain.

 

[InOffMeLeftShin]

I think you might be overestimating our suitability for the magic system as opposed to Chelsea's. If anything, Mikel is a more disciplined water-carrier than Sandro because he isn't as good a ball player as Sandro. He has no ambition to move upfield, so he just sits as insurance for the full-backs to play higher up, whereas Sandro could be a giant of a box-to-box midfielder- our Roy Keane in his prime, so to speak. The second point is that Terry didn't fit the high line model, but it was criminally stupid to enforce it on him anyway since just plain defending is what Terry does very very well. We're in danger of making the same mistake at Spurs by not having Dawson out there commanding the back line.

Seems like argument for the sake of arguing there. Mikel isn't as good a footballer so he'd be better in a defensive role than Sandro? It's like saying Ledley in his prime was great at moving out with the ball and passing it, so we'd have been better suited playing him in midfield and having Chris Perry as first choice centre back because he is less likely to break out of defence and disrupt our defensive structure...

Nobody ever said it was a magic system but Sandro is a far better defensive player than he is at breaking forward. He positions himself well and moves forward to make tackles, rather than them being reactive, he wins balls in the air and plugs holes very effectively. Most of that seems to go unnoticed and following recent games it has been said he was poor because people are noticing the misplaced passes rather than the defensive contribution. You only need to see the difference in the side when he goes off the pitch to see how good he is in that role.

Up until his substitution in the WBA game, they weren't able to get a foothold in the game at all. As soon as he went off they were able to start playing the ball into the area in front of the defence where Lukaku was picking up the ball and running at our defenders, scaring the bejesus out of them. People will say we weren't able to stop Lukaku but the root of the problem is that we weren't stopping the balls being played into him, something that Sandro does very well.

In fact what you have stated about Sandro breaking out from a deeper position is valid. There is no reason why he shouldn't do it occasionally, in fact it should be encouraged as it adds an extra dynamic to our side. He should only be doing it if the space is there to break into and another midfielder, likely Dembele would have to cover for him as he breaks forward. That is the part of the effectiveness of the high line, if Sandro did break forward he'd have far less ground to cover to get back to his defensive position and it should be possible if the other players are fully committed to pressing.

I also think you are misdiagnosing the problems of our last two home games. DM already responded to two points about having defenders who can defend and clear effectively and that the tactic requires us to retain possession. But another aspect is that we didn't sit back and invite them on us, they got in behind us far too easily. That is a symptom of a high line, not an outcome of dropping deep. Their goals resulted from second balls from corners, and you can't exactly play a high line at a corner. And the play that led to corners was them getting in behind us - especially Norwich who had several occasions to play 3-4 passes and be in behind us.

The defensive line needs to use judgement on positioning and not be too deep off of attackers, nor right up on their shoulders. As Gaz said, we can talk about theory all we want, but we need to bring the best out of the players we have. If our defenders move up too close to the half way line, we'll just be allowing smart fast premier league attackers spin off into the space behind us. Defoe, Bale and Lennon would love to play against that system. Nobody is arguing that they should sit on the 18 yard line either, but we have international quality defenders who can defend sensibly if you let them.

You are speaking as if we played a super high line and the opposition were breaking our off-side trap. I'll go back and take a look but my impression was that didn't happen. As already mentioned by others, we haven't really started playing the high line and we certainly haven't got the pressing going in front of it, which in most part is what this column (and the previous one) was about. If we are going to do something then we have to do it with full commitment rather than in half measures. Getting stuck half way between playing a highline with pressing and playing deeper with committed defenders who'll throw themselves in front of the ball is going to cause all sorts of spaces to appear.

The Norwich game is a prime example. Our whole defensive setup seemed to be way off. The gap between the midfield and defence was too big for large parts allowing the Norwich players to play in between and then cut through the defence (again I don't remember 3 or 4 passes being played behind our defensive line).

Whilst the goals came as a result of set plays in both games you could feel the goals coming. We were really on the back foot and we were allowing the opposition to dictate the play. Usually when we get as deep as that defensively we aren't able to retain possession because making clearances tends to result in the ball coming straight back at us. We have to find a way to stop the play earlier and further away from our goal so that we can play shorter balls into players who are more able to retain possession.

There are always two (or more) ways to skin a cat and I have never stated once that the 433 or high line is the only solution. But with AVB having stated publicly on quite a few occassions his preferences for that setup, I very much believe that he has to actually commit to it now rather than this intermediate solution which really isn't effective.

 

[jolsnogross]

There are always two (or more) ways to skin a cat and I have never stated once that the 433 or high line is the only solution. But with AVB having stated publicly on quite a few occassions his preferences for that setup, I very much believe that he has to actually commit to it now rather than this intermediate solution which really isn't effective.

I appreciate the lengthy response. Just a couple of points and then I'll leave this thread alone.

You seem to be advocating that AVB commit to one way of playing. Or at least you're being a bit contradictory ("I have never stated once that the 433 or high line is the only solution" vs "I very much believe that he has to actually commit to it now"). I thought the benefit of AVB is that he'd be more flexible than the apparently inflexible Harry. I think the system is less important than getting the best out of the players.

That's illustrated by Sandro, who could be a much better box-to-box midfielder rather than the defensive shield you advocate. He's good at breaking up opponents' possession, but he can also play a bit and has a great engine. If he's always covering for attacking full-backs, then the system is too rigid.

I reckon 433 will struggle to bring the best out of Bale, Lennon, Defoe. I think AVB is mistaken about Dawson who might be the best natural defender we have at the club. If 433 or the high line is causing his omission, that's a great shame.

Ultimately, I agree with your initial suggestion that there isn't only one solution. Shoehorning players into a system rather than tailoring our play to bring the best out of players is a recipe for disaster. It was a spectacular disaster at Chelsea for AVB, who went on to win two major trophies after he got the boot. And if by intermediate solution you mean 4-2-3-1, then United, City, Chelsea, Arsenal and a majority of teams are now playing that intermediate solution. It's not very different from 4-4-1-1, which allows our pacey wingers to start a bit deeper and have space to run in to. But he shouldn't play Sandro & Livermore together...we need more guile than that.

Big games coming up for AVB. I hope he silences my doubts about him.