-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
What went wrong?
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
Park Lane James
Andy Sinton
we did play not very good
thfcsteff
George Hunt
I refuse to make excuses, but we handed them every goal other than van persie's excellent one. The third goal is quite simply Ledders getting caught napping as Rosicky continues a run behind him and he could not recover, the fourth was once again Ledders having his hand help by Kaboul, with both being let down by Benny's stroll/refusal to chase back...in fact, sadly, Ledders was exposed badly today once Parker got a yellow and Sandro did not just sit in front of the back four; he was on the pitch to do precisely what he didn't do at all. It is why we should've started 4-5-1.
Belsizespur
Bobby Zamora
There was also Benny's lazy overhead clearance that lead to Van P's goal. That should have been wellied, not tapped. We got done today, but good. And it hurts, but I'd still rather be a Spurs supporter than an in-bred Gooner.
marcospur2
Ronnie Rosenthal
No question we flattered them. Sandro I think came on and seemed over enthusiastic to try and get us back in it. He should have played to his strengths as you suggest. But I think we also need to recognise that while King maybe lacked cover his weaknesses are increasingly clear to see. Still a top player, so I am not jumping on any bandwagon, but his lack of pace is increasingly noticable. On 451 it can work for us (and has) but it must mean Bale and lennon on wings.
Steed Train
Clive Wilson
Regurgitating an existing lawro thread spelt the end
Modric THFC
Jimmy McCormick
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2012/02/26/arsenal-5-2-tottenham-arsenal-complete-an-amazing-comeback/
Tottenham went 2-0 up but then lost their shape completely and conceded five.
Arsene Wenger had something approaching his first-choice back four available. He used Tomas Rosicky in the Aaron Ramsey role in midfield, and Yossi Benayoun getting a start on the left.
Harry Redknapp picked two out-and-out strikers upfront, with Rafael van der Vaart and Aaron Lennon only on the bench and Niko Kranjcar making a surprise start on the right of midfield.
This was another ridiculously open Premier League game (and another North London derby with plenty of goals). Both back fours had poor games and Tottenham were unable to control the game at any point ÔÇô even when they were playing well and 2-0 up. There were four major themes here:
(1) Tottenham play direct
This was a classic 4-3-3 v 4-4-2 match-up. In simple terms, the 4-3-3 is likely to dominate possession by virtue of having an extra man in the midfield, but the 4-4-2 can be more direct with two strikers.
ThatÔÇÖs basically what happened early on. Tottenham played quick, direct balls towards Louis Saha and Emmanuel Adebayor, who battled with the Arsenal centre-backs. But the approach was slightly more complex than that ÔÇô the two forwards drifted into wide and deep zones to split the Arsenal centre-backs and open up room for midfield runners. Kyle Walker made a clever off-the-ball run to drag Thomas Vermaelen into a poor position for the first goal, while the second came from a penalty won when Gareth Bale found space to drive into.
It was interesting that Adebayor worked the left side in particular, forcing Laurent Koscielny into difficult situations high up the pitch. As mentioned when Zlatan Ibrahimovic did the same, Kosicelny doesnÔÇÖt like coming high up the pitch ÔÇô he generally leaves that to Vermaelen and looks to get in covering positions.
But ArsenalÔÇÖs problem was that they had no covering defender, leaving 2 v 2 at the back and telling both full-backs to push high up the pitch. This made them extremely vulnerable to quick breaks with no spare man and the full-backs not in a position to cover.
They arenÔÇÖt used to having to play more conservatively at the back ÔÇô this was only the second time in the Premier League this season that a side had come to the Premier League and played two upfront. The other side was Fulham, who also caused Arsenal problems and picked up a point having been 1-0 up, but at least that day Arsenal had a defensive-minded right-back in Johan Djourou to cover. (Manchester United also played two forwards, but Wayne Rooney was usually picked up by Alex Song to maintain a spare man).
(2) Arsenal pass well
Arsenal have been wider and more direct this season, and reliant upon their wide players for creativity ÔÇô but this was a bit more like the Arsenal of a couple of seasons ago, with Yossi Benayoun coming inside from the left, and Rosicky moving forward from midfield without any defensive responsibilities. Those two actually played in similar positions, but this allowed them to work short passes, form triangles with van Persie or Arteta, and Benayoun drove well at the defence.
Arsenal had an extra man in this zone, of course, though Redknapp told Adebayor and Saha to drop onto the deepest Arsenal midfielder when Spurs didnÔÇÖt have possession. This is one area where it works well for Arsenal to rotate their midfield trio, though ÔÇô if Saha moves onto Song, then Arsenal tilt the triangle to bring Song higher up the pitch, Saha will have to move over and pick up Arteta instead. Not particularly difficult, but not natural for a centre-forward. Jermain Defoe, who was on the bench, has been very disciplined at playing this role in the past couple of years.
(3) Tottenham lack control
Tottenham were 2-0 up without playing particularly sparkling football ÔÇô they just broke quickly and efficiently. At 2-0 up they were clearly in an excellent position, but they were unable to exert any kind of control upon the game, and invited pressure from Arsenal ÔÇô Rosicky and van Persie both had good chances before Bacary Sagna got a goal back (and itÔÇÖs important to note that the advanced positioning of the Arsenal full-backs did have positive effects despite the aforementioned problems at the back).
The second half line-ups
A side can control the game either in or out of possession ÔÇô by keeping the ball and slowing the tempo, or by retreating into an organised defensive shape and soaking up pressure. Tottenham did neither ÔÇô they were outnumbered in the centre and therefore unable to keep the ball. ModricÔÇÖs pass completion ratio was down at 82% (compared to the usual 88%), and he couldnÔÇÖt do it on his own anyway.
More surprisingly, their defensive shape wasnÔÇÖt particularly good ÔÇô previously against Arsenal theyÔÇÖve defended well with two banks of four, but here the two wide players were particularly poor defensively, and there was also the problem with dropping a striker onto an Arsenal midfielder.
(4) Arsenal start to counter
At half-time Redknapp moved to a 4-1-4-1ish system ÔÇô van der Vaart on the right in place of Kranjcar, but more significantly Saha off, and Sandro on. Tottenham lost their shape, became increasingly narrow and their gameplan was confused ÔÇô it wasnÔÇÖt clear whether they were trying to see more of the ball in the centre, or continue their direct attacking.
Either way, they gradually started to become very vulnerable to Arsenal counter-attacks. Rosicky got the third when Tottenham found six players ahead of the ball ÔÇô Sandro wasnÔÇÖt sitting as he was meant to, and Parker was now higher up ÔÇô and Arsenal worked a 5 v 4 for the goal.
Then Walcott became involved in the game. Having been poor in the first half, he suddenly became excellent midway through the second half. But there was good logic to that ÔÇô heÔÇÖd been anonymous when Tottenham sat deep, he became useful when Tottenham pushed up and left space in behind. The away sideÔÇÖs offside trap was poor, and Walcott had the pace to take full advantage on two occasions.
Conclusion
On the face of it, this was a game that defied logic with how open it wasyet there were some fairly logical factors that contributed to the scoreline. In the first half, Arsenal left 2 v 2 at the back and were weak at the back, but dominated the midfield battle 3 v 2 and built pressure.
RedknappÔÇÖs changes at half time didnÔÇÖt have the effect they did in this fixture last season, and in the second half Tottenham were extremely poor ÔÇô lacking structure at the back and with no ideas going forward.
Tottenham went 2-0 up but then lost their shape completely and conceded five.
Arsene Wenger had something approaching his first-choice back four available. He used Tomas Rosicky in the Aaron Ramsey role in midfield, and Yossi Benayoun getting a start on the left.
Harry Redknapp picked two out-and-out strikers upfront, with Rafael van der Vaart and Aaron Lennon only on the bench and Niko Kranjcar making a surprise start on the right of midfield.
This was another ridiculously open Premier League game (and another North London derby with plenty of goals). Both back fours had poor games and Tottenham were unable to control the game at any point ÔÇô even when they were playing well and 2-0 up. There were four major themes here:
(1) Tottenham play direct
This was a classic 4-3-3 v 4-4-2 match-up. In simple terms, the 4-3-3 is likely to dominate possession by virtue of having an extra man in the midfield, but the 4-4-2 can be more direct with two strikers.
ThatÔÇÖs basically what happened early on. Tottenham played quick, direct balls towards Louis Saha and Emmanuel Adebayor, who battled with the Arsenal centre-backs. But the approach was slightly more complex than that ÔÇô the two forwards drifted into wide and deep zones to split the Arsenal centre-backs and open up room for midfield runners. Kyle Walker made a clever off-the-ball run to drag Thomas Vermaelen into a poor position for the first goal, while the second came from a penalty won when Gareth Bale found space to drive into.
It was interesting that Adebayor worked the left side in particular, forcing Laurent Koscielny into difficult situations high up the pitch. As mentioned when Zlatan Ibrahimovic did the same, Kosicelny doesnÔÇÖt like coming high up the pitch ÔÇô he generally leaves that to Vermaelen and looks to get in covering positions.
But ArsenalÔÇÖs problem was that they had no covering defender, leaving 2 v 2 at the back and telling both full-backs to push high up the pitch. This made them extremely vulnerable to quick breaks with no spare man and the full-backs not in a position to cover.
They arenÔÇÖt used to having to play more conservatively at the back ÔÇô this was only the second time in the Premier League this season that a side had come to the Premier League and played two upfront. The other side was Fulham, who also caused Arsenal problems and picked up a point having been 1-0 up, but at least that day Arsenal had a defensive-minded right-back in Johan Djourou to cover. (Manchester United also played two forwards, but Wayne Rooney was usually picked up by Alex Song to maintain a spare man).
(2) Arsenal pass well
Arsenal have been wider and more direct this season, and reliant upon their wide players for creativity ÔÇô but this was a bit more like the Arsenal of a couple of seasons ago, with Yossi Benayoun coming inside from the left, and Rosicky moving forward from midfield without any defensive responsibilities. Those two actually played in similar positions, but this allowed them to work short passes, form triangles with van Persie or Arteta, and Benayoun drove well at the defence.
Arsenal had an extra man in this zone, of course, though Redknapp told Adebayor and Saha to drop onto the deepest Arsenal midfielder when Spurs didnÔÇÖt have possession. This is one area where it works well for Arsenal to rotate their midfield trio, though ÔÇô if Saha moves onto Song, then Arsenal tilt the triangle to bring Song higher up the pitch, Saha will have to move over and pick up Arteta instead. Not particularly difficult, but not natural for a centre-forward. Jermain Defoe, who was on the bench, has been very disciplined at playing this role in the past couple of years.
(3) Tottenham lack control
Tottenham were 2-0 up without playing particularly sparkling football ÔÇô they just broke quickly and efficiently. At 2-0 up they were clearly in an excellent position, but they were unable to exert any kind of control upon the game, and invited pressure from Arsenal ÔÇô Rosicky and van Persie both had good chances before Bacary Sagna got a goal back (and itÔÇÖs important to note that the advanced positioning of the Arsenal full-backs did have positive effects despite the aforementioned problems at the back).
The second half line-ups
A side can control the game either in or out of possession ÔÇô by keeping the ball and slowing the tempo, or by retreating into an organised defensive shape and soaking up pressure. Tottenham did neither ÔÇô they were outnumbered in the centre and therefore unable to keep the ball. ModricÔÇÖs pass completion ratio was down at 82% (compared to the usual 88%), and he couldnÔÇÖt do it on his own anyway.
More surprisingly, their defensive shape wasnÔÇÖt particularly good ÔÇô previously against Arsenal theyÔÇÖve defended well with two banks of four, but here the two wide players were particularly poor defensively, and there was also the problem with dropping a striker onto an Arsenal midfielder.
(4) Arsenal start to counter
At half-time Redknapp moved to a 4-1-4-1ish system ÔÇô van der Vaart on the right in place of Kranjcar, but more significantly Saha off, and Sandro on. Tottenham lost their shape, became increasingly narrow and their gameplan was confused ÔÇô it wasnÔÇÖt clear whether they were trying to see more of the ball in the centre, or continue their direct attacking.
Either way, they gradually started to become very vulnerable to Arsenal counter-attacks. Rosicky got the third when Tottenham found six players ahead of the ball ÔÇô Sandro wasnÔÇÖt sitting as he was meant to, and Parker was now higher up ÔÇô and Arsenal worked a 5 v 4 for the goal.
Then Walcott became involved in the game. Having been poor in the first half, he suddenly became excellent midway through the second half. But there was good logic to that ÔÇô heÔÇÖd been anonymous when Tottenham sat deep, he became useful when Tottenham pushed up and left space in behind. The away sideÔÇÖs offside trap was poor, and Walcott had the pace to take full advantage on two occasions.
Conclusion
On the face of it, this was a game that defied logic with how open it wasyet there were some fairly logical factors that contributed to the scoreline. In the first half, Arsenal left 2 v 2 at the back and were weak at the back, but dominated the midfield battle 3 v 2 and built pressure.
RedknappÔÇÖs changes at half time didnÔÇÖt have the effect they did in this fixture last season, and in the second half Tottenham were extremely poor ÔÇô lacking structure at the back and with no ideas going forward.
Belsizespur
Bobby Zamora
THIS.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
An excellent summary eh? Nailed it. I am so angry that Harry was so utterly, utterly naive...4-4-2 away from home...
Kingdawson
Banned
in a match against your arch rivals who are 10 points behind you. Beggars belief really.
indospurs
Young-Pyo Lee
1st half we played counter, 2nd half they did, and we left gaps so f'in wide that walnut could score a brace. Even before the goals, he once streamed into our gapingly open left back position and instead of pushing on into the box, squared to van persie. It was horrificily frightening how easy that looked. For van persie's goal, you never let him turn onto his left foot in and on the edge of the box, but the shot was exquisitely executed (bastard).
Poor brad, never had a chance and made one amazing save, and several vital ones later on. We were so out of shape, we were wobbling like a jelly at the end.
Poor brad, never had a chance and made one amazing save, and several vital ones later on. We were so out of shape, we were wobbling like a jelly at the end.
Belsizespur
Bobby Zamora
Last week Michael Cox from zonal marking wrote an analysis of how Sunderland pressed the Goons high up the pitch and forced their dodgy back line into mistakes. It's a shame Harry couldn't have had someone read that to him and take notice.
Facepalm.
Please stop with the formation bashing. 442 didnt work great, but we were 100 times better in the first half, when we played that system.
Do you agree with? We were worse in the second half? With 451? Please tell me you agree.
IMO, neither 442, or 451 was to blame.
It was our mentality, or lack of it.
No the game was 2-2 at the start of the second half.
The fact you say it was lost, is probably what our players thought too, judging by the response 2nd half, which is a poor attitude, imo.
451 didnt help because of some of the reasons you stated, and 442 didnt work because we didnt play the right way either (no Lennon, and not using the flanks...too much through the middle)
I dont understand this. You have all the excuses (correct ones imo) as to why 451 failed massively, yet, the more successful 442, you refuse to acknowledge any single other factor, other than the formation itself.
No one gets brownie points for being right or wrong.
The fact you say it was lost, is probably what our players thought too, judging by the response 2nd half, which is a poor attitude, imo.
451 didnt help because of some of the reasons you stated, and 442 didnt work because we didnt play the right way either (no Lennon, and not using the flanks...too much through the middle)
I dont understand this. You have all the excuses (correct ones imo) as to why 451 failed massively, yet, the more successful 442, you refuse to acknowledge any single other factor, other than the formation itself.
No one gets brownie points for being right or wrong.
I
indianspur
Guest
wenger was right....for 5 mins we were ok, but for 85 mins they skinned us alive
fcuk formations when you cannot pass from A to B. We couldnt keep the ball, we were slow all over the pitch, lethargic for the majority of the game
the thing is that Arse have one way of playing, its to pass and move and to do it at speed. When they get it right and are on their game they are hard to stop, especially if like we played like we did by not at least keeping the ball away from them.
and even without Dawson(who is always to blame it seems) we kept hoofing it from the back, again meat and drink to their defenders and we simply kept gifting them possession.
shocking