Strategic discussion

[JollyHappy]

Thought Ange said Gray was bought as a full back?......

I don't think he ever said that. He said he had player full back but I think Ange has said that he seems him as a midfielder long term.

 

[For the love of Spurs]

I actually think Ange is being consistently let down by several key players right now, and frustratingly two of them are massive fan favourites and seem like all round great guys.

Son is the main culprit for me. He can't press effectively and i've noticed that he consistently is a few steps behind the opposition when defending/pressing. You can see what the oppo player is going to do and the options for him would be to either A) quickly press that player to limit the effectiveness of their next pass or B) cut off the channel that they could pass to that isn't being covered by our other players. He mostly does neither and ends up in a bit of no mans land, where the oppo player has both the time to pick a pass and also the channel in which to play it. Going forwards he is really quite ineffective at being decisive and unless the other team is someonlike Tamworth he seemingly has little to no will to take a player on and skin them. Odobert yesterday showed us how effective this can be, along with Bergvall early on getting a shot off which resulted in our goal. Basically Son has a couple of things we need him to depending on whether we are in possession or not and he really isn't doing either of them at all well. I don't mean to dig him out, but I think a combination of him ageing, being overplayed and frankly him not being able to adapt to Ange's style of play is making him a fairly big liability for us in many games.

Porro is the next one that's causing us a lot of issues. Again great guy and gives 150% every match, but his defensive position is becoming woeful. He is often either A) out of position or B) unable to block a cross coming in. The out of position issue has cost us a fair few goals already this season and if this is something he can't sort out in his game then we need to think about either A) moving him on in the summer or B) adapting tactics to ensure someone in midfield is always covering for him. His defending on the edge of the box really needs work too, I would say he allows 75%+ of players to get their cross in from his side, whereas Spence for example is probably in the 10-25% range, unless it's Mo Salah he's facing and then it's about 50/50.

Next up is Johnson / Werner / Deki - who all have become far too complacent at choosing the easy back pass on the wing rather than trying to either beat their man or at least progress the ball sideways /forwards in an attacking momentum. Deki is the best of the 3 at this as he does look to cut inside sometimes, but we need to get to the point where our wingers are all looking to get a cross in, shit I'd even consider giving them all a "successful cross" bonus at this point as I reckon we'd get a couple of goals per game if instead of the 20 back passes from the wings each game we got 10-20 crosses coming into the box.

I agree with you but I don’t think there is much they can do.

Son - lost his explosive pace and not very strong, he isn’t suited to be a winger in this system. Odobert is far better equipped for the left.

Porro - the guy is a wing back let’s be honest.

Kulusevski- wing isn’t his best position

Johnson/Werner - limited players

Best we can do is buy 1-2 more wingers with more rounded skillsets and have Spence as the main RB. Obviously that means buying another left back to cover Udogie.

The balance of the team is a clear issue.

 

[Trix]

I don't think he ever said that. He said he had player full back but I think Ange has said that he seems him as a midfielder long term.

Nope he 100% said he was bought as a full back in a press conference not too long ago.

 

[okc1992]

Nope he 100% said he was bought as a full back in a press conference not too long ago.

I don't think he would have joined if he was being bought in as a fullback when Brentford were offering him a midfield role.

Is Tottenham’s Archie Gray finally about to be given the chance to play in midfield?

The 18-year-old has so far only played at the back - will Rodrigo Bentancur's suspension and a gruelling run of fixtures change that?

www.nytimes.com

Interestingly Brentford were planning to play him as a 8 for 2 years whilst he learnt the defensive side.
"Brentford explained to Gray and his representatives that he would spend two years playing as a No 8 in Frank’s 4-3-3 system, effectively operating as one of their advanced central midfielders. He would learn the intricacies of being a defensive midfielder from captain Christian Norgaard, who has been capped 32 times by Denmark. After his first two seasons, Gray would be ready to replace Norgaard as the first-choice holding midfielder."

 

[Trix]

I don't think he would have joined if he was being bought in as a fullback when Brentford were offering him a midfield role.

Is Tottenham’s Archie Gray finally about to be given the chance to play in midfield?

The 18-year-old has so far only played at the back - will Rodrigo Bentancur's suspension and a gruelling run of fixtures change that?

www.nytimes.com

Interestingly Brentford were planning to play him as a 8 for 2 years whilst he learnt the defensive side.
"Brentford explained to Gray and his representatives that he would spend two years playing as a No 8 in Frank’s 4-3-3 system, effectively operating as one of their advanced central midfielders. He would learn the intricacies of being a defensive midfielder from captain Christian Norgaard, who has been capped 32 times by Denmark. After his first two seasons, Gray would be ready to replace Norgaard as the first-choice holding midfielder."

I agree completely that he was not bought as a full back. Ange definitely said it though.

 

[Cochise]

I like that there was a plan for him to learn from a veteran. One issue I have with our current setup is that for all the young talent, we've not got the greatest of tutors for them.

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

Thought Ange said Gray was bought as a full back?......

He’s mentioned plenty of times that he sees him as eventually playing midfield.

 

[kremlyn]

Ange often says he knows where Gray will end up playing but never says, the wily old fox.

 

[cabinfever]

I agree completely that he was not bought as a full back. Ange definitely said it though.

I thought he was joking when he said it??

 

[matthew.absurdum]

Better to put it here … how could a 4-3-3 really works?

 

[WiganSpur]

If Ange won’t play a back 5 then play this against Bournemouth:

Vic
Spence Danso VDV Udogie
Gray —- Bergvall
Johnson —— Maddison —- Odobert
Tel/Scarlett



​

 

[kremlyn]

Good question. I guess there are a couple of variants. Depends whether your full backs overlap or underlap, or if you play a flat 3 in the middle, v shaped as we do or ^ shaped with a double pivot.

Last night was awful. But its a problem with the midfield imo. It wasn't until Sarr was introduced that we had someone prepared to run in behind the defence and offer an option to those in crossing positions.

Both Maddison and Lucas seem to want to stay outside the area which means there's no one to support the striker. Dare I say it but we're crying out for a Soucek or Fellaini type of player as our 8 who has the nous and physicality to make our width count. The players on the edge of the area should be the fbs but currently we have three players in the left hand side, passing the ball to each other because there's no hope of hitting the one man in the middle.

Even if you don't cross, the 2 players in the box might distract the defence enough to leave space for a shot.

This for me is why Deki is invaluable for us because he always attacks the box.

It is also why we could do with either trusting Gray or Biss as the 6 so Bentancur can be that 8. He's a presence and a fine header of the ball.

We've got a busy summer ahead of us I suspect.

 

[Nick-TopSpursMan]

Better to put it here … how could a 4-3-3 really works?

Imo instead of thinking about how a base formation works, you need to look at the way it’s constructed in phases.

So the base formation that you see on paper is hardly ever seen during an actual match. It’s there to act as the default shape at kick off and to show which player profiles go where.

But in essence, no matter the base formation, IN possession teams generally default to one of two shapes:
1. A 3-2-4-1 shape
2. A 2-3-4-1 shape

Every team essentially breaks down to 2 main units in possession, you have a block of 5 defensively and a block of 5 offensively. Obviously you can end up with a block of 4 defensively and 6 offensively depending on game state and opposition. Some of the players in the defensive block might not be defensive but may be there to help support build up play.

How you construct this shape is where you see differences with managers. So for example Poch used to construct his 3-2 defensive shape with 2 CBs and 1 DM in the 3 and then a CM and 10 in the 2. Where as another coach may keep 1 fullback in the 3 with 2 CBs and have 2 DMs ahead of them.

Ange constructs it 2-3 which is more attacking but in reality it often becomes 2-1 which is why we are so open.

The second shape is OUT of possession. Teams can generally press in many different shapes and some coaches tweak this wildly depending on opposition but the most popular shape tends to be 442 or 424.

One of the reasons we struggle so much is we overcommit too many bodies ahead of the ball so when we don’t win it back we are far too exposed.

If you can’t win the ball back then a team will generally settle to an out of possession shape, which could be a 442, could be a 451 etc depending on the coach and their ethos.

In conclusion what I’d say is rather than look at what base formation a team is playing, you need to look at the intricacies of their IN possession and OUT of possession shape to properly analyse the team and understand whether a manager has a sustainable system imo.

 

[kremlyn]

Imo instead of thinking about how a base formation works, you need to look at the way it’s constructed in phases.

So the base formation that you see on paper is hardly ever seen during an actual match. It’s there to act as the default shape at kick off and to show which player profiles go where.

But in essence, no matter the base formation, IN possession teams generally default to one of two shapes:
1. A 3-2-4-1 shape
2. A 2-3-4-1 shape

Every team essentially breaks down to 2 main units in possession, you have a block of 5 defensively and a block of 5 offensively. Obviously you can end up with a block of 4 defensively and 6 offensively depending on game state and opposition. Some of the players in the defensive block might not be defensive but may be there to help support build up play.

How you construct this shape is where you see differences with managers. So for example Poch used to construct his 3-2 defensive shape with 2 CBs and 1 DM in the 3 and then a CM and 10 in the 2. Where as another coach may keep 1 fullback in the 3 with 2 CBs and have 2 DMs ahead of them.

Ange constructs it 2-3 which is more attacking but in reality it often becomes 2-1 which is why we are so open.

The second shape is OUT of possession. Teams can generally press in many different shapes and some coaches tweak this wildly depending on opposition but the most popular shape tends to be 442 or 424.

One of the reasons we struggle so much is we overcommit too many bodies ahead of the ball so when we don’t win it back we are far too exposed.

If you can’t win the ball back then a team will generally settle to an out of possession shape, which could be a 442, could be a 451 etc depending on the coach and their ethos.

In conclusion what I’d say is rather than look at what base formation a team is playing, you need to look at the intricacies of their IN possession and OUT of possession shape to properly analyse the team and understand whether a manager has a sustainable system imo.

Great post.

You say we're more of a 2-1 out of possession. I'm not at games so can't see the defence when our attacks break down, how high is our defensive line? If there is a gap between the defence and attack because they won't push up higher, is this what creates this exposure?

I'm not phobic about a high line and I noticed when VDV came back there was much increased pressure on the opposition.

 

[aliyid]

You say we're more of a 2-1 out of possession. I'm not at games so can't see the defence when our attacks break down, how high is our defensive line? If there is a gap between the defence and attack because they won't push up higher, is this what creates this exposure?

I'm not phobic about a high line and I noticed when VDV came back there was much increased pressure on the opposition.

The high defensive line is nowhere near as bad as pundits (still) try to make out.

The beauty of that three in the middle is that you can apply more control with two deep lying ball winners or more attacking threat with the two being creative ball players.

Our main issue is that the ‘2-1’ is more of a floating 3 for us at the moment as our central midfield roles lack clear definition or purpose (usually end up as positional cover to allow the fullbacks more freedom to attack). This ends with the heart of our team lacking identity and nobody taking ownership or control of the game.

 

[Nick-TopSpursMan]

Great post.

You say we're more of a 2-1 out of possession. I'm not at games so can't see the defence when our attacks break down, how high is our defensive line? If there is a gap between the defence and attack because they won't push up higher, is this what creates this exposure?

I'm not phobic about a high line and I noticed when VDV came back there was much increased pressure on the opposition.

Our defensive line used to be really high a lot of the time but one of our issues at the moment is our line doesn’t push high enough with the press and we end up with too much space between defence and attack.

We do still get caught with a high line at times too though.

We are just so poorly organised and all of the above factors I mentioned in the Ange thread play a part imo.

 

[rossdapep]

Tactics, systems, inverted this and inverted that.

The only graph, chart or diagram we need to look at to discover the cause of the predicament we are in is below.

Never appoint a manager from this league. A fourteen point and sixteen point gap between first, and second and second and third tells the story.

Winning anything in that league is no indicator of a successful manager. Barnes, Gerrard and the like are all proof of that, and Rogers soon hopped back up.

View attachment 152065

I think it was the style in which Ange did it which made people believe but yes, it isn't a barometer as the league is pish poor.

 

[rossdapep]

The chaos that comes from turnovers in our half is greater than with other teams imo because the defenders are already out of position. This means they are all putting out the nearest fire and not covering their traditional positions.

The Garnacho chance in the first half was the best example of this this season. When Maddison loses the ball, Bergvall is level with him, Bentancur is in midfield with Porro, Danso is in a tradition RB area having just passed the ball up the line to Deki. The header down from the UTD player goes past Bentancur, Davies steps out but is beaten to it. Porro then sees a massive space where our LCB should be so races to cover it, Danso is tracking back to his position with the UTD forward. Davies goes to the same space as Porro, but no one is in our RB space where two UTD players have identified space and are queuing up for a pass.

Every team is vulnerable on a turnover, but for us it seems worse.

Probably been mentioned already but we don't have a 'rest defence' players must only be concerned with getting into advantageous positions.

That means the structure isn't there. Not a stable one anyway.

So even if we get the ball but it's not secure (player has it but is immediately in a dual) we don't have players in the right positions to cover in case we lose it.

We don't set the play first nor do we consider where the ball is won, if the player has it secured, if they can play forward. It's simply, win the ball and move forward in numbers.

Some teams will win the ball but focus on shape first and get control. They'll time the moment to bomb forward when they see the opposition vulnerable.

Yesterday, Bergvall got the ball in the middle and all three attackers sprinted forward. They did this despite AZs back 5 all being in position.

That meant there wasn't a realistic pass for Bergvall to play. Instead he had to carry it, except he had no support apart from 2 players to the left.

If he'd have lost it immediately, there would have been zero protection for Porro and Gray on that right side cause Bentancur was on the left next to Udogie and Maddison was on the touchline on the opposite side ahead of the ball.

There was zero structure which meant Bergvall had to make it up as he went along.

 

[Cochise]

Probably been mentioned already but we don't have a 'rest defence' players must only be concerned with getting into advantageous positions.

That means the structure isn't there. Not a stable one anyway.

So even if we get the ball but it's not secure (player has it but is immediately in a dual) we don't have players in the right positions to cover in case we lose it.

We don't set the play first nor do we consider where the ball is won, if the player has it secured, if they can play forward. It's simply, win the ball and move forward in numbers.

Some teams will win the ball but focus on shape first and get control. They'll time the moment to bomb forward when they see the opposition vulnerable.

Yesterday, Bergvall got the ball in the middle and all three attackers sprinted forward. They did this despite AZs back 5 all being in position.

That meant there wasn't a realistic pass for Bergvall to play. Instead he had to carry it, except he had no support apart from 2 players to the left.

If he'd have lost it immediately, there would have been zero protection for Porro and Gray on that right side cause Bentancur was on the left next to Udogie and Maddison was on the touchline on the opposite side ahead of the ball.

There was zero structure which meant Bergvall had to make it up as he went along.

It's one of those things that I saw documented about Guardiola and a few other coaches of the same style. A sequence of safe passes after regaining possession whilst players move in to their places in the shape, thus establishing control.

 

[rossdapep]

It's one of those things that I saw documented about Guardiola and a few other coaches of the same style. A sequence of safe passes after regaining possession whilst players move in to their places in the shape, thus establishing control.

And you can see why. Winning the ball is no longer a random moment in football. Teams are well prepared defensively and offensively and they also focus on areas where they can win the ball.

Without that structure once you win the ball, you get what we are seeing with Ange. There's no objective to get the ball and keep the ball before building. It's get it and get it forward quickly.

That can work with coaches like Moyes as they focus on defensive structure and normally have players who can hold up the ball which also helps you to secure the ball. But they would still have players under the ball and supporting the ball winner.

We leave everything to chance as we press randomly, are not focused on winning the ball in any particular area which means we are ill prepared for a lot of situations.

We have some success if we win the ball against a high line who are not at it. But any team that is very well organised and is usually set in position during these transitions, we seriously struggle.