Tactics last night

[mendesstormer]

Interesting starting line-up. Not quite sure what Ramos was trying to achieve there, though it seemed to me that Hudd was being given a fairly free role and was expected to be our surprise package. Perhaps because Ramos recognised that PSV were defensively sound, well-organised, and might just sit on their lead. Hudd didn't quite manage it, but there were times there where you could see him being much more influential if the system is tweaked to play to his strengths. At the moment I'd guess that they're not quite sure if he's good enough to justify moulding the tactics around his abilities - as Glenda undoubtedly was at his age. The only other explanation for this line-up was if Lennon had a slight knock - didn't appear so when he came on, but my Romanian (no C5 in these parts) wasn't really up to scratch so don't know if the commentary mentioned this? Whatever we may have gained from this tactical move, I think we lost as much by not having the pace and trickery of Lennon out there. The only disappointing aspect to the performance was a slight lack of fluency and pace in the attack, which I think Lennie gives us because he stretches the game so much. In hindsight, another way to approach the game would have been to tear into them at the beginning and go all out for an early goal, knowing that conceding one didn't matter too much, as we still needed 2 for an outright victory. But Ramos so nearly got it right that it's hard to fault him. The later tactical switches seemed spot on too, altho the final one surprised me in that it was unusually cautious. In the end I think we ended up playing too much long ball, which was completely unnecessary, but I think this is a bit of a default mode for some of the players, rather than a tactical plan.

One final point - a number of people have commented on the corners not beating the first man, but I thought perhaps they were trying specifically for a near-post corner which did lead to a great effort from Ledley at one point.

 

[idlepete]

I said this in the 'Proud' thread:

Mixed feelings for me. Proud of the effort that the team put in to beat PSV and how well-organised we were, but... tactically we were cagey as fuck last night. What happened to a compact midfield with two wingers? What happened to 'to dare is to do?' We needed to go out there and beat the other team... 2-1 or 3-2 would have been better than 1-0 and I really expected our lineup to reflect that from the off.

Ramos put out a team to keep us in the tie for as long as possible, and in doing so put the result above the football. This isn't a major criticism. I can understand why he would do that. Get the result right first and worry about the football later. Problem is, when you do that and then don't get the result, no matter how close you come you're hoist by your own petard.

Sad to say, Ramos got this one wrong. And I'd have been prouder if we'd gone out in a blaze of glory and goals.

I guess if it's possible to accuse Ramos of anything last night it's of being almost too tactically astute and overthinking our approach to the fixture. We were already losing. We could have done with some all-out attack Jol-esque tactical naivety...

 

[mendesstormer]

Sad to say, Ramos got this one wrong. And I'd have been prouder if we'd gone out in a blaze of glory and goals.[/I]

I don't really think he did get it wrong. So many fine lines involved - Malbranque (x2), Bent and possibly King could have scored, and came very close. We were one kick away from winning it on penalties.

I was just curious as to why he went for this particular starting line-up. He's certainly not afraid to experiment, given that he'd never used this formation before. I remember Steve McClaren trying to go out in a blaze of glory in the UEFA final against Sevilla - embarrassing to watch them get torn apart as he threw on more and more attackers (esp as we knew he was about to become England manager).

 

[DC_Boy]

well I thought Ramos did a tremendous job last night with his tactics - to win 1-0 over there was a great effort

 

[Cicada]

i'm gutted, but not moaning about the tictacs.. they were minty fresh

 

[Evolution]

I thought he was tactically spot on and we kept PSV on the back foot, on there turf for 90% of the game. We just lacked that bit of creativity in the middle to open them up.

I hate route 1 football with a passion but it was effective last night and Berba & Bent won 75% of the balls hoofed up to them and they knocked them off setting of an attack instantly. Ramos played to our strengths and PSV's weakness and I think he is very versatile in the tactics he employs. He's certainly not afraid to change things either and Bent almost scored with his first touch of the ball.

9/10 for me...we we're just unlucky on the day

 

[yanno]

Given who was and wasn't available, I thought Ramos got the gameplan correct last night, as I've written here:

http://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=28671&page=2

 

[DC_Boy]

I thought he was tactically spot on and we kept PSV on the back foot, on there turf for 90% of the game. We just lacked that bit of creativity in the middle to open them up.

I hate route 1 football with a passion but it was effective last night and Berba & Bent won 75% of the balls hoofed up to them and they knocked them off setting of an attack instantly. Ramos played to our strengths and PSV's weakness and I think he is very versatile in the tactics he employs. He's certainly not afraid to change things either and Bent almost scored with his first touch of the ball.

9/10 for me...we we're just unlucky on the day

some great points there Evo (although I'm always partial to a bit of route one myself - and yes I'm talking football apparently that phrase originated with Quiz Ball in the 60s - not sure if that's an urban myth tho)

 

[alamo]

Given who was and wasn't available, I thought Ramos got the gameplan correct last night, as I've written here:

http://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=28671&page=2

Was going to write something along those lines but not a lot of point as you have summed it up perfectly for me.

In fact the more I think about it the more I applaud Senor Ramos for completely changing the game plan and setting the team out in a such a different manner. Was a very brave move and penalties aside it worked.

Have some rep.

 

[mendesstormer]

Hello. I'm not criciticising the tactics as you can clearly see if you read the original post. Nobody's picking up on what seemed to me the most interesting aspect of the tactics - why start with three central midfielders, and was he expecting Hudd to control the game in a sort of free role? This isn't a criticism, it's a question - I'm trying to understand the tactics.

 

[idlepete]

I don't really think he did get it wrong. So many fine lines involved - Malbranque (x2), Bent and possibly King could have scored, and came very close. We were one kick away from winning it on penalties.

My point though is that we specifically employed tactics that made the game all about those fine lines - so when it didn't come off for us, I don't see how you can say he didn't get it wrong, no matter how close it was. A miss is as good as a mile in this case.

I remember Steve McClaren trying to go out in a blaze of glory in the UEFA final against Sevilla - embarrassing to watch them get torn apart as he threw on more and more attackers (esp as we knew he was about to become England manager).

We did end up throwing on more and more attackers in the second half, up until we scored the goal, and we managed that without conceding... I'd like to think this is because we're a bit more talented and organised than Steve Mclownshoe's Boro side was.

 

[mendesstormer]

My point though is that we specifically employed tactics that made the game all about those fine lines - so when it didn't come off for us, I don't see how you can say he didn't get it wrong, no matter how close it was. A miss is as good as a mile in this case.



We did end up throwing on more and more attackers in the second half, up until we scored the goal, and we managed that without conceding... I'd like to think this is because we're a bit more talented and organised than Steve Mclownshoe's Boro side was.

Good points, and well made. My only counter is that you can never guarantee goals no matter what the tactics. Having more strikers on the pitch (or whatever gung-ho tactics you care to choose) doesn't guarantee we would have created more chances. Strikers might have been isolated due to us coming under more pressure at the back, for example.

 

[guy]

nothign wrong with the tactics we just lacked the players to win the game. The spark that a top MF provides was the only difference. If we played that game with a gerrard or fibreglass in the middle things wouldve happened for us and we'd be through.

This will come in the summer and we'll be winning cups!

 

[tRiKS]

I think after the last 10 mins of the first half where the huddlstone set up especially was done from good one touch interplay, the change at 45 to go 3 at the back was too soon. We stretched the game and oursleves when i thought we'd got control of the game and would have gone on in 442 to score anyway. As a result we did score but I personally think the fatigue on us for stretching out the game in that way showed in the extra time. i think we could have got the goal in a 442 and then had reserve engery and subs to take into the extra time.

I felt the tactics were a mistake from ramos but unlike Jol, Ramos has proven he has luck.

 

[DC_Boy]

Hello. I'm not criciticising the tactics as you can clearly see if you read the original post. Nobody's picking up on what seemed to me the most interesting aspect of the tactics - why start with three central midfielders, and was he expecting Hudd to control the game in a sort of free role? This isn't a criticism, it's a question - I'm trying to understand the tactics.

TBH mendes I'm not quite sure what JR was trying to do, but it worked that's the thing, and I think it's unrealisitc to expect us to go 'gung-ho' away from home from the start - (and you've pointed out some of the problems in this thread) - for me JR got it right overall given the circumstances (of which he's far more aware than we are)

 

[alamo]

Nobody's picking up on what seemed to me the most interesting aspect of the tactics - why start with three central midfielders, and was he expecting Hudd to control the game in a sort of free role?

Read the link Yanno posted. In a nut-shell: a diamond formation with Steed and Hudd tucking in with Jenas playing more advanced to try and capitalise on knock-downs from balls to Berbs. ie. trying to exploit their lack of height at the back

 

[idlepete]

Hello. I'm not criciticising the tactics as you can clearly see if you read the original post. Nobody's picking up on what seemed to me the most interesting aspect of the tactics - why start with three central midfielders, and was he expecting Hudd to control the game in a sort of free role? This isn't a criticism, it's a question - I'm trying to understand the tactics.

Yanno explained it well in the 'proud' thread:

My take is that Ramos tried to play wide, attacking, football in the first leg (which is why Gilberto was picked at LB), and PSV simply stopped us. We created very little at WHL, especially down the flanks, because PSV stopped our FBs getting out and Steed ended up coming inside to help out our CMs.

So, for the first time since taking over at Spurs, Don Juande sent out a team without wingers. I think his gameplan was to use Chimbo & Lee to mark PSV's wide strikers, and then outplay PSV in CM with our diamond formation. And that diamond became even more aggressive in the second half when Bent went up front with Keano, and Berba played in the hole.

I also think Ramos did gamble very aggressively: Bent for Lee and Lennon for King were very bold attacking moves.

Last night, we basically stopped PSV as comprehensively as they had shut us down at WHL. And created several good chances. If Bent had a bit more confidence (not his fault), he could easily have scored a winner. And Malbranque's screamer in the 119th minute would have beaten most keepers.

And I don't disagree with the thinking behind it, I understand it. I just thiink on our day we could have ripped them apart, and seeing as were already losing the tie with nothing to lose, we could have just concentrated on playing our own game instead and gone at 'em hammer and tongs looking for an early goal.

 

[Has1978]

nothign wrong with the tactics we just lacked the players to win the game. The spark that a top MF provides was the only difference. If we played that game with a gerrard or fibreglass in the middle things wouldve happened for us and we'd be through.

This will come in the summer and we'll be winning cups!

actually i think this is true. we came mighty close, but ultimately, our players were not good enough on the whole.

 

[mendesstormer]

Diamond formation sounds all fine and dandy in a coaching manual, but it wasn't really was it? Who was at the front of the diamond? - Jenas? hardly, as he was repeatedly coming back to collect the ball off the defence. Looked to me like a lop-sided midfield, with (possibly) Hudd being given license to roam a bit. But I have to say I'm not sure what the formation really was.

 

[yanno]

Yanno explained it well in the 'proud' thread:
....................
And I don't disagree with the thinking behind it, I understand it. I just thiink on our day we could have ripped them apart, and seeing as were already losing the tie with nothing to lose, we could have just concentrated on playing our own game instead and gone at 'em hammer and tongs looking for an early goal.

Idlepete - you're a gent. :up:

We should remember that during their winning run in last season's UEFA Cup, Sevilla GK Palop SCORED a last minute equalizing goal away at Shakhtar Donetsk. And we would have beaten Sevilla if we hadn't had a disgraceful penalty decision against us in the away leg, Steed hadn't sliced a harmless ball into his own net etc etc.

Football is a game of fine margins - especially at the top level. Ramos came out with a gameplan which enabled us to be the better side last night. A bit of luck here and there, a slightly sharper Darren Bent, Steed's screamer going in the top corner, etc etc, and we would have won last night.

Remember Ramos inherited this squad, including the Curse of the Attacking Left Back (ie they're all sodding well injured). I'm gutted. But still more optimistic about our prospects than I have been for years and years.