Gary Neville Analysis on Arsenal v Spurs Frailties in defence.

[cjsimba]

Answering my own question a little bit, I found this analysis useful: http://www.zonalmarking.net/2013/03...-high-lines-and-balls-in-behind-the-defences/

Particularly this section:

Arsenal did have opportunities to play the ball in beyond Tottenham’s defence, especially as Cazorla came inside and caused an overload in that zone, distracting Parker and leaving Wilshere free between the lines. There were two problems, though – Wilshere’s passes were overhit and went through to Hugo Lloris (who started high up, ready to sweep), while Olivier Giroud lacked the pace to sprint onto balls in behind. Cazorla’s big diagonal switch after ten minutes found Giroud in advance of the defence, but his sluggishness allowed Jan Vertonghen to regain his position and make a fine tackle.

Theo Walcott recognised where the space was, and started to play as a second centre-forward. He made a couple of decent runs that went unspotted, but it’s arguable that his positioning was too ‘obvious’, too permanently central, and in a position where the Tottenham centre-backs could see him easily.

Tottenham defended well, however. Although they started with a high line, they didn’t blindly keep that positioning when Arsenal advanced towards them, and instead dropped off closer to their own goal. Vertonghen’s anticipation skills were invaluable, while Dawson got into good covering positions. Benoit Assou-Ekotto played very narrow and followed Walcott inside, although this opened up his flank to darts forward from Carl Jenkinson, with Sigurdsson also narrow (and not the most natural defender).

 

[Wellspurs]

Gary Neville went up in my estimations the day Rio Ferdinand tried to stitch him up with a Candid Camera style prank.
Rio got him nicked by a fake parking attendent who offered to let him off if he slipped him fifty quid. Neville just said that if he was guilty he should be charged like anyone else. If I had his dosh I would have bribed the bloke.

 

[Gedson100]

Sorry, I know the son of Neville Neville is very popular on this board but I don't actually agree fundamentally with everything that he said.

.

Me neither. Not that he's wrong but the Spurs highlights seemed to omit the fact that when you ran the clips forward our centre backs appeared to be closing down the player and Assou-Ekotto & Walker were covering in behind them, which makes sense when you consider they are our speed men.

Also, surely the simple fact that Monreal is new to his team & not efficiently communicating with Vermaelen has a greater impact on his effectiveness than merely what Vermaelen is doing.

[The fact that there was seemingly little quality on the ball during the match was a direct result of these two similar systems matching up and squashing the pitch.]

Speaking to my Gooner father in law and he's been cursing them getting ripped through the middle all season, so yeah that's a problem for them. As for us, we seem to be able to interchange personnel without much of an impact on our effectiveness as a defensive unit. That speaks volumes for our defensive system, the training and tactics. ANd we just don't give up good chances often. The only time I can remember our back 4 being all at sea this year was Man Utd's goal at the Lane, and that was so incongruous purely because it was unusual.

 

[Danners9]

Answering my own question a little bit, I found this analysis useful: http://www.zonalmarking.net/2013/03...-high-lines-and-balls-in-behind-the-defences/

Particularly this section:



Theo Walcott recognised where the space was, and started to play as a second centre-forward. He made a couple of decent runs that went unspotted, but it’s arguable that his positioning was too ‘obvious’, too permanently central, and in a position where the Tottenham centre-backs could see him easily.

Maybe not too obvious, but from the point of view of the player on the ball it was too difficult to get a decent pass through. If the ball skips through then Lloris is there, if it is too short then a defender gets it. Watching Wilshere, I think he sees the pass but doesn't think it is on when he looks so he does something else. There is a small area where the right ball can land for Walcott or whoever to take in stride and under control.

When Sigurdsson is about to pass for Bale, the defender (Vermaelen?) moves ever so slightly which causes Sig to wait a split second and pass the ball through the gap the defender has left. If the Spurs defenders aren't making these holes then the pass has to be perfect.

 

[cjsimba]

So would i be right in saying that the difference is:

Tottenham - played high line with pressure on the opposition up the field. Dropped a little further back when opposition midfield had more time on the ball, but tried to play a line where the opposition's through ball had to be perfect otherwise the sweeper-keeper Lloris would clear (if ball is too long) or the defence would be able to get back (if the ball is too short). The 2 quick full backs with good communication, as well as one of the centre backs, were also able to provide sufficient cover if the through ball was attempted. Not 100% guaranteed success rate but a tactical gamble that will more often than not pay off - Vertonghen challenge on Giroud an example of a time where it didnt quite work, but Vertonghen's pace and anticipation still allowed him to get back and make the tackle.

Arsenal - Similar set up but due to lack of communication, poor positioning play, did not drop back enough when midfielders had the ball and time to think with it. Therefore, through balls were more likely to be effective due to increased space behind, keeper not coming off his line as quickly as Lloris, + poor covering due to lack of communication between full backs and centre backs.

So basically, whilst it may have looked like both teams were gambling massively with their defensive play, Tottenham were in fact much more tactically aware and adept, meaning the through balls Gary Neville suggested could have been played by Arsenal, were in fact not played due to Wilshere recognizing etc. that they would have to be perfect to be able to beat a well positioned, well-'recoverable' (other defenders could get back and cover) Tottenham defence. Whilst the Spurs defence wasn't 100% perfect in its positioning at all times, the Arsenal defence was positionally far poorer and allowed Spurs to attempt and succeed with the through balls that ultimately won them the game.

That sound like a fairly accurate summary or not?

 

[SteveH]

Lloris is the big difference IMHO

 

[ryantegan]

one thing for sure is whether you agree or not with Mr Neville. His dissection of the game has become a very good watch

 

[KentuckyYid]

Gary Neville went up in my estimations the day Rio Ferdinand tried to stitch him up with a Candid Camera style prank.
Rio got him nicked by a fake parking attendent who offered to let him off if he slipped him fifty quid. Neville just said that if he was guilty he should be charged like anyone else. If I had his dosh I would have bribed the bloke.

I've never had a problem with GN. Always kinda liked/respected him. That he was willing to take a charge rather than bribe compounds that even more. What do you all think Rio and most other footballers would do? My money is on bribing.

 

[mano-obe]

Gary Neville went up in my estimations the day Rio Ferdinand tried to stitch him up with a Candid Camera style prank.
Rio got him nicked by a fake parking attendent who offered to let him off if he slipped him fifty quid. Neville just said that if he was guilty he should be charged like anyone else. If I had his dosh I would have bribed the bloke.

I would have probably done the same. He's a great bloke really, when he got fined for his celebration against Liverpool he appealed, not out of money but for principle. He didn't and doesn't have an agent either, he likes to think for himself. He strikes me as someone who's street smart and booksmart. It was rare anyone got the better of him, the only player I see give him the run around was Ginola, but then again Ginola done that week in week out to everyone on the wing. He was no nonsense player who read the game like a book. He has sung the praises of Hoddle saying he was the best England manager he had, even when he left Phil Neville out of the world cup, to say that means he has some bollocks.

I couldn't imagine Lawro and Hansen on a show like Sky, they're used to stating the obvious from a ten second clip "he should have scored there"

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Me neither. Not that he's wrong but the Spurs highlights seemed to omit the fact that when you ran the clips forward our centre backs appeared to be closing down the player and Assou-Ekotto & Walker were covering in behind them, which makes sense when you consider they are our speed men.

Also, surely the simple fact that Monreal is new to his team & not efficiently communicating with Vermaelen has a greater impact on his effectiveness than merely what Vermaelen is doing.

[The fact that there was seemingly little quality on the ball during the match was a direct result of these two similar systems matching up and squashing the pitch.]

Speaking to my Gooner father in law and he's been cursing them getting ripped through the middle all season, so yeah that's a problem for them. As for us, we seem to be able to interchange personnel without much of an impact on our effectiveness as a defensive unit. That speaks volumes for our defensive system, the training and tactics. ANd we just don't give up good chances often. The only time I can remember our back 4 being all at sea this year was Man Utd's goal at the Lane, and that was so incongruous purely because it was unusual.

Good post Jair. I would also say that whilst we play two tenacious cm's ahead of our defence, Wenger invariably opts for the more attacking dynamic. Arteta can tackle and is dynamic, as can/is Wiltshire & Ramsey, but none are what you'd call busy ****s or hunter gatherers, they all prefer to be on the ball than off it.

This is why I was disappointed we didn't play better second half. Personally, I think as good as Arsenal can be, they aren't the Arsenal of old and we showed first half we could compete. Dropping deeper is one thing, but stopping playing football (pressing their backs and midfield, moving off the ball and passing efficiently) which is what we did, is another.

 

[guiltyparty]

Neville does a lot of research before games, as does Lee Dixon. They treat it like a proper analytical job

You suspect Hansen and Lawrenson just turn up and mumble the first that comes in their heads

 

[Danners9]

Neville does a lot of research before games, as does Lee Dixon. They treat it like a proper analytical job

You suspect Hansen and Lawrenson just turn up and mumble the first that comes in their heads

Lawro's BBC predictions is a terrible feature.. the results may be right from time to time but the reasons why he arrived at that result are terrible. Same as Garth Crooks' team of the week. Worryingly bad. He suggested England take a look at James Morrison of WBA, that is 26 times capped SCOTLAND international James Morrison.

 

[We'llWinThePrem]

Gary Neville is the best pundit in the country.

Lee Dixon is the only other half decent one.

 

[monkeynick]

Bring back Andy Townsend and his 'tactics truck' I say, now that was punditry

 

[guiltyparty]

Lawro's BBC predictions is a terrible feature.. the results may be right from time to time but the reasons why he arrived at that result are terrible. Same as Garth Crooks' team of the week. Worryingly bad. He suggested England take a look at James Morrison of WBA, that is 26 times capped SCOTLAND international James Morrison.

Jesus, Garth Crooks. I mean, Spurs, lovely, isn't it, but he's terrible. Takes, hmm, forever, it seems, don't you think?, to ask, I think, a question, one assumes, to sound, perhaps, clever and, it can often feel, to add an, altogether, undeserved sense of, how do you say, drama to what he says

 

[danielneeds]

The high line is a very divisve issue, and an interesting debate. The fact is, that you will concede some goals from trhough balls, even if your defence is in perfect sync, but do you concde less goals overall, pinning your opponents back and winning the ball higher up the pitch? Most coaches think yes.

 

[michaelden]

Neville does a lot of research before games, as does Lee Dixon. They treat it like a proper analytical job

You suspect Hansen and Lawrenson just turn up and mumble the first that comes in their heads

you mean a pre-broadcast beer session doesn't count as analytical research?

 

[$hoguN]

I don't think he underplayed it at all, the correct weight of ball simply cuts that option out.

Neville's point was that a player of quality would have cut us to ribbons. Carzola and Wilshire either delayed their passes to long or over hit them. With better passing we could easily have been 2 down before we went 2 up but their final ball was poor.

Our players showed their players how to do it.

And that is where I disagree with Neville, a great ball will carve open any defence, so the point is moot. With Lloris' quick reactions and the extra time that give the defence to make up ground and apply pressure to the striker, it takes a truly special pass to cut us to ribbons. Wilshire and Carzorla are two of the Premier League's better passers, yet they were not able to create a chance when one of their forwards is up there with the quickest in the league; to me at least that shows why he is wrong.

 

[$hoguN]

Gary Neville went up in my estimations the day Rio Ferdinand tried to stitch him up with a Candid Camera style prank.
Rio got him nicked by a fake parking attendent who offered to let him off if he slipped him fifty quid. Neville just said that if he was guilty he should be charged like anyone else. If I had his dosh I would have bribed the bloke.

Didn't he ask him for an autographed pic, not a 50 pound bribe?

 

[Mr Pink]

The high line is a very divisve issue, and an interesting debate. The fact is, that you will concede some goals from trhough balls, even if your defence is in perfect sync, but do you concde less goals overall, pinning your opponents back and winning the ball higher up the pitch? Most coaches think yes.

Indeed, buy I think we couldn't of asked for a better keeper to play this way.