I really think the most critical piece of this was Van De Ven going off. His recovery pace is brilliant and without it, Hojbjerg and Dier just could not get us out of jail the same way. Will be interesting to see how Ange adapts with VDV likely out for quite a bit.
Agreed. It confirms the theory that when the injuries start to roll in Tottenham are going to struggle with lack of depth. Had VDV not been injured they may have had a chance, but 2 red cards + losing VDV meant losing their recovery pace. It's never good when you have to replace a CB, but having to replace 2 CB's while being 2 men down.. not much you can do there.
@@Luke_Mavin He'd be a much better defender in this kind of system, in a deep block system he's fine without that pace, and trading it for some physicality
It’s pretty hilarious that Ange’s defensive strategy is rely on the insane pace of VDV to make desperation and cover tackles. 11 games into the season and he tears a hammy… Ange you’re a genius mate.
I think Postecoglou was desperate not to change mentality and the mindset of his players, particularly as it's so early in his tenure. He hinted at it in several interviews after he took over - he needs complete buy-in, he needs the way they play to become second nature to the players, and last night I wonder if his risk-reward decision making was also predicated on future matches. Essentially, if we keep them playing like this in this most desperate of situations, then there should be no future match situation where they start dropping deep, start hoofing clearances long etc. I'd say it probably worked too given the way the fans backed the team and the players have all come out saying how proud they were of the performance. Can you see them sitting back on a 1-0 lead from 70 minutes in a future match? No way, they will, to coin Ange's phrase, never stop.
@@pennywise4843as an Aussie who’s followed Ange for a long time. That’s exactly that. He sticks to his guns and what he believes football should be down to his inner core beliefs. It’s what broke down his tenure at the Aussie National team. Pretty much told the FA to get f*cked and headed off to Japan.
.. and then they'll find, like Klopp and Liverpool did, that you can't play that way for 90 mins for the whole season and a more nuanced approach is called for if you want to win something. (Although winning something might not be a requirement at Spurs.) It's very fun to watch though, I'll give you that.
@@MikeCOYSUdogie should've gone before Cuti did tbf, but I think both players will learn from last night. Udogie in particular you could see he was basically giving himself a talking to and gesticulating in a way to suggest he knew he hadn't been smart. COYS
It was incredibly obvious tactically that Chelsea had to put in through balls down the wings instead of the middle of the pitch. Every through ball down the middle was getting swept up by Vicario. Down the wings, it was outside his arc to reach it. First time Chelsea did this, they scored the winner. They did it again and scored the 3rd.
Chelsea only scored their third mere seconds after Spurs had nearly got it back to 2-2 with Son in the 93rd minute! If Spurs had still had Van De Ven and / or Romero on the pitch even with 9-men they would have still had players fast enough to get Jackson. We ended up with Dier and Royal at the back. Everything went Chelsea’s way.
@@mrorangepeel659"everything went Chelsea's way" mate what? Aside from the injury, everything that happened that game was Tottenham's fault. Sounds like you're saying Chelsea got lucky
@@mrorangepeel659Spurs have only themselves to blame. They hosted a struggling Chelsea side, early on in their development cycle, whilst they themselves are flying high in the league. Instead of just rattling off a routine win (as Chelsea used to do when the tables were turned) they did the most Spursy thing possible and self destructed.
From neutrals' perspectives it's pretty black and white and because as we lost they say Ange's approach was wrong, but had Dier stayed onside with that goal, or Bentancur hit his header a bit better or Son scoring that late game shot, we'd keep hearing songs of praise about how Ange's a genius. I like that he decided to be brave and take huge risks which was very close to paying off. The fact is we created chances and it took Chelsea almost 40mins to finally break us with their 3rd goal which ended all hopes for us. It sucks that we lost to Chelsea, but for most Spurs fans we're happy to have seen those 9 players give their 100% for 100+ minutes on the pitch especially after 4 years of negative football with a fairly miserable atmoshpere in a deadwood squad with very fragile mentality.
No, you'd be talking about how bad Chelsea were at converting a genuinely ridiculous amount of chances to score pretty much every time they got the ball.
Had to admire that even as an arsenal fan... I was actually torn between wanting spurs to win and wanting them to get battered... for the first time ever a part of me wanted spurs to win.
People really need to acknowledge just how bad Chelsea were in this game. Play this exact same way against City with 9 men and I'm not joking you lose by a record scoreline, and the narrative is very very different.
I do wonder if Ange did it so the team have absolute clarity about his approach? It's his first season in the Prem, with new players, clarity of what he wants must be so important and there's not many more obvious ways of showing that he believes in his approach than going down to 9 and carrying on playing the same way.
This makes sense, i think it was Harry Kewell that said "with ange there's no black and white, there's just black" meaning he has one system and ingrains it into everyone's heads
Son's chance that nearly made it 2-2 in the 94th minute that got narrowly fingertipped away by Sanchez (as well as Dier and Bentancur's great chances from free kicks...lol at Chelsea defending) is exactly why Ange chose to still play this way. Spurs would have never touched the ball if they sat back in a 4-4 to defend with 8 outfield players, as basically 99.9% of squads would have done. Chelsea likely wouldn't have ended up scoring 4, but more importantly Spurs never would have had even a sniff at a 2nd goal. To dare is to do.
One thing i’ve noticed since last night is the amount of liverpool fans celebrating spurs loss and saying things like “karma” like they were playing rather than chelsea… strange behaviour as they are acting like spurs had anything to do with decisions that went against there team
I'm a Liverpool fan and was so annoyed Spurs lost. As a LFC fan I'd always prefer whatever team who go out and die on their shield the way Spurs did. Was epic. I wish the internet had a c@nt filter, the way there's ad block or adult filter etc. Think it'd help with what you seen 😅
The problem was the way tottenham celebrated their win over Liverpool as though it was their doing/achievement. Rather than take the 3 points, whilst realising that only by certain events they were able to win.
As a Liverpool fan, I think its more aimed at some Spurs fans// I still like Spurs as a club and the way they set up today though, was a shame they couldn't get a result here
@@AdamHetherington bahahah your right mate… tbf i noticed most of it on a clip of paddy murphy reacting to the game (he immediately started talking about the curtis jones red which probably encouraged it a bit)
Maybe it’s just the recency bias from Conte and Jose’s football but if we(Tottenham) continue playing the way Ange plays regardless of sending offs Id be satisfied. Even if no trophies are won.
It's not like you were about to win anything anyway. But I agree that Tottenham games used to be entertaining at the very least, until Mourinho and Conte
Football is a game of fine margins - on another day, Dier isn't 2 inches offside, Bentancur puts it in from a yard out and Son buries his chance in the back of the net. The flipside is not taking chances and getting easily taken apart. Having watched Conte's spurs get torn apart when they went to low blocks, I'm glad they have a coach who is willing to take a risk and try to get something from the game. It's really telling that Spurs fans seem more positive about this result than Chelsea's do.
@@mcnetchaiev Point being, we know that a team in a low block, especially with 8 outfield players, will have a far less likely chance of scoring than a team pushing high. Theres no way spurs would have even found themselves in the position to score if they had sat deep. It almost worked, and posed more of a problem for chelsea than if they had sat back.
@@jacklawrence7331It did not/would not almost work 🤦♂️ Chelsea would have peppered them with plenty of time to go. If Spurs go 2-2, Chelsea win 3-2, 4-2, or 5-2. Playing high with 9 men is naive no matter which way you cut it. Chelsea are bad collectively but they have more talent on their roster than Sh*tspur do. Something was always going to give against Spursy
@@iChoseScylla Erm....not sure why you're being so reactionary - Spurs fans feel better about the loss than Chelsea do about the win, so that should tell you something about where the two teams are at right now. Besides, Chelsea's whole problem is that they bought loads of individuals with no thought to how they would play together. Spurs is the polar opposite - every player in that team is instrumental to how they play so effectively, which is why the injuries are of such a concern.
Obviously a lot easier said than done, but perhaps an idea would be to "mix up" your strategy during different periods of the game. Low block for 10 mins, then high line for 10 mins etc - Chelsea managed to "crack the code" in the end, but having them solve a changing code would be even tougher, especially with their creativity/finishing issues. Not too dissimilar to how Arsenal change their intensity for different periods of the game.
This is somewhat my thinking too. If I were in that situation probably would drop into a low block only when the opponent had long periods of possession, so Chelsea can’t use their one strength which is in behind. But when spurs won it back they could have countered with son/ Johnson and even if and when they lose it up the pitch, they can than set the high line there and force them to play fast. So sort of a fluid system that moves like the ocean tide depending on circumstances slowing inching forward or backwards to suit the game.
@@thedethrocker8858 fair but Ange’s best idea seems to be to go into a shoot out with his 9 vs 11 and hope he somehow out scores them and wins 5-4 like he’s playing fut champs. Chelsea score 8 in that game if they’re even a little bit better. It’s good to see him stick to his methods just feels like he could be more flexible but credit to him . his philosophy seems to be to always fasten the bayonets and go over the trenches, anything less is surrender. It’ll be interesting to see how it works out nexts couple games with the both cbs out, might be a drop off
I suspect this would ultimately be his game, but we might just be too early into buying his philosophy, which needs instilling to undo years of defensive football. Then again, this is all speculation.
it was just naive not brave, if chelsea's attackers knew how to time a run they would have scored 8. a top team would've hit double digits. why set your team up to get annihilated?
@@themanmachine125 high lines are common amongst all top teams... it's not naive to play modern football instead of sitting in the box and inviting pressure
"love that guy so much" - Hmm, sounds like a parasocial relationship. He seems like a good manager for Spurs but I wonder what effect 2 red cards will have on his next game?
There is something admirable about playing to win instead of playing not to lose, even when you're as up against it like Spurs were. Despite that, I think they were flattered by how long it took Chelsea to suss out how to beat the high line. Against a team with pacy forwards who struggle against a low block, Spurs could have realistically held on for a point by sitting deep once they were down to 9 men - Liverpool would have done it but for a very unfortunate own goal. I expect there are some data analysts and probability experts who could mathematically determine which approach would have been better. Of course, the bigger issue is why Romero and Udogie lost their heads when their team was DOMINATING 🤣
tottenham held out longer than liverpool did, also there is the deep next level argument that you allow jackson to score a hattrick so that he has more chance to get picked for chelsea and they continue to struggle with him its also another chance to build the team identity for 99% of matches when they play with 11 men
People are equating the Liverpool game with this one a lot, and for good reason, not many games have a team down to 9, but what I keep seeing is a lack of consideration for the players each team had at their disposal. Liverpool were able to bring on Konate to shore up the defense and sit deep with him, VVD, and Matip. On the other hand, Spurs lost both CBs and were playing with a midfielder and Eric Dier in defense. There's no way that they would've done as well as Liverpool if they had dropped into a low block.
Sitting back hoping for a draw (counterintuitive to everything BigAnge tells, and trains them to do) makes no sense. Better off loosing in junktime and making a statement that regardless of the scenario, if you're playing Spurs, they're never going to stop coming at you.
To beat a high line in that situation, forwards should be acting as decoys while runs come from deep midfielders and fullbacks. Runs from fullbacks/midfielders are more effective against super high-lines because it is far easier to remain onside while maintaining momentum and much harder to track.
@@danielevans8728true they were struggling but i expect that from young players like chelsea have, one case of that was the cucurella run which was a really dangerous opportunity credit to vicario for holding onto that
i have to say despite the bad result, this was so enjoyable to watch, the teams mentality chelsea or manu can just dream of and its amazing to see considering losing Kane and beign not rly good last season.
@@Rachl1284Spurs could barely beat Liverpool with 9 men and it took an own goal. I don’t get how spurs fans are talking about this match like they won because “mentality.” If I was one I’d be pissed at how badly they gifted Chelsea three points.
Chelsea played terribly and still scored 3 goals against that high line. With quality passing and quality runs Chelsea should have scored a lot more goals.
As a Chelsea fan I wanted to give them a massive bollocking. First half sterling just stood offside for 5 minutes, like he's the guy with pace, he can see they aren't dropping, so he had to make an effort to come back onside. Second half sterling again was mostly just coming to the ball for feet. Again, he's the guy with pace, make a run!!! Then we end up with Jackson, sterling and mudryk all stood on halfway with the spurs players. Like are they f-ing mental? Stand 5-10 yards in your half, and make a run which you can run onto and outpace a stationary defender. Maybe leave Jackson up to occupy, but was just insane really. Then we keep going straight down the middle or too deep and easy for vicario. Finally went down the sides, even though had scored offside goals like this already. Honestly the most frustrating game this season. Worse than Nottingham forest at home, because it was so obvious and easy. For 10-5 mins after udogie was sent off, it felt like spurs had more possession. Most of it was porro rolling around on the floor, but it was very poor from Chelsea during that time, and didn't keep the ball for more than 3 passes. Can see they aren't coherent as a team yet as always checking runs, not playing the pass, then eventually play it and they're offside. No timing. Basically looked decent from 20-30 mins and 94-97. The rest wasn't great 🙁
The reality is, Spurs were struggling before they went down to 10. Romero and Udogie were lucky to stay on the pitch as long as they did. When they go down to 9 the task is impossible. So he could have dropped deep, looked awful, got the crowd on his back and lost. Or he could play this high line, force the players to work hard, let the fans see them working for the team, lose but keep the confidence high. I genuinely think this will work in their favour next week in a way that sitting back wouldn't have.
Would Spurs have played the same if the opponent was not as disorganized as Chelsea? Against Arsenal/Liverpool/ManCity/Newcastle etc... I really doubt it. One long ball combined with the speed of Salah or Haaland and that high-line is just a group of sitting ducks. Even against this current Chelsea, clearly this strategy failed. I am not saying the teams should park the bus, but the managers should read the game and react to it rather than "sticking" to a pre-decided strategy. Though credit to Spurs for holding off Chelsea that long from scoring 👏👏👏 Hopefully they'll warn Romero to get a tad bit less aggressive. I swear he's gonna break someone's leg otherwise!
Well no they conceded 3 goals in almost 40 minutes of play and also had chances to equalize. They conceded twice in literally stoppage time. You don’t have to mischaracterize the game. Spurs and Ange already did enough wronf
@@jasonjc2264 Chelsea's weakness is low blocks so playing a high block against them isn't very smart. A better striker then Jackson would have scored five.
yes but chelsea dont have a better striker or maybe that would change the tactics. If jackson was playing like usually he would have missed even more of his shots.@@jo_magpie
@@jo_magpie well they don’t have a better striker now so they. Also honestly I agree it was bold and not the best choice but we did have dier and hojbjerg at center back and also 9 men. Not as easy as it looks to set up shop. Also we did have chances to equalize before they scored two in later stoppage tome
I’ve said this on another video but I honestly think if spurs had sat back and played on the counter they leave with a draw or win. And before any spurs fans get upset with me, I’ll fully admit to being an Arsenal supporter and I respect the approach in theory but I think ange has to be more flexible and look at the situation. What I’m saying is much more about Chelsea’s specific weaknesses and less about spurs. All season and even when it was 11 v 11 Chelsea had shown their only threat is in behind and spurs played into that, increasingly more so after each red. If Chelsea weren’t so bad it could have been 3/4 if not more in the first half the only reason it wasn’t is because they can’t time runs and they can’t finish. I don’t think they create any of those major chances if they don’t leave so much space behind. It’s like Chelsea could only hurt you with a small little match and spurs decided to cover themselves in gasoline and give them a bear hug.
yah you aint wrong but as a neutral it would have been boring but it gave us the most outrageous game. Funny enough i was more disappointed at Chelsea in the end
Liverpool had the luxury of not having 3 key defenders missing - they had their normal backline, Van Dijk and matip, subbed in Konate, TAA and Gravenberch so they had the defence ability to just sit back.
I like how all the rival fans are mad about how spurs fans and pundits appreciate the willingness to fight and play a risky style. its not your team so why are you so mad about a different coaches decision. Is it because you still are below spurs in the league table perhaps.
But that wasn't City was it? and Spurs almost pulled it back, so it almost worked. Chelsea's been having high xGs all season but it hasn't worked for them too many times.
I don't think its a question of tactics, It's a question of integrity. Listen to ange's interview after the game, he said even if he's down to 5 men he's gonna give them a fight. That's the philosophy of his football and thats the culture that he's building at spurs. nothing but respect for the man.
Gutted for Spurs. They played so well early on then certain players lost their heads. The injury to VDV was just salt in the wounds and is going to make them far more vulnerable. If their chairman backs the manager and brings in the players he wants for his system then they're going to be frighteningly good. The Son goal (that was offside) was some of the best football I've seen this season.
I think one thing that almost everyone is forgetting is what Postecoglu keeps saying after every game, which is that performances are more important than results at the moment. We're a work in progress. Game are an opportunity for the group to learn and gain experience of playing the way Postecoglu wants. It's simply not the case that every tactical decision will be based on what's most likely to get us the points. I would also point out that there were a couple of points in the second half where we came very close to scoring, even without the three players who you could argue we've got noreplacements for in the squad at the moment, and with only nine on the pitch. I'm reminded of a Bill Nicholson quote: “It is better to fail aiming high than to succeed aiming low. At Spurs we set our sights very high, so that even failure will have in it an echo of glory.” That's just who we are, mate.
@@gooner3681No it wasn't. It was about the same. Look at the heat maps from this season. YOu can't learn how to play a high-risk, high-reward style of football if you stop taking risks the minute something goes wrong.
“touches in the attacking penalty area last night were 26-32 in Chelsea's favour. “ Chelsea were up a man for basically 45 minutes and Spurs still carved out 3 good chances before the 3rd Chelsea goal. Absolutely worth the tradeoff IMO.
Yeah it was very risky but from a players energy conservation point of view i think it was genius to keep the high line even with 9 men. In squeezing the size of the pitch you reduce not only the distance to goal for the but also the distance players need to press which means its still effective. Less fatigue equals fewer mistake and lapses in concentration in my book.
But it's very fatiguing for the centre backs having to make 40 yard sprints towards their own goal every 3 minutes. One of them literally snapped their hamstring doing that. And the issue is that most of the time they weren't effectively pressing anyway, so Chelsea players had time and space on the ball to play those through balls.
@@bighamster2 Yeah I will concede that but it was excellent to vicario negating some of that by sweeping. I should have also added that I ment it means to still provide a serious attacking threat.
I'm sorry but Tottenham got 2 men sent off and lost 4-1 at home to a London rival. Why they're being praised is beyond me! Chelsea had so many clear cut chances that it could have easily been more than 4 as well!
@@alexcoyg3281 It's literally anges first year coaching this team. He certainly had not prepared them to play as 9 men this early. The fundamentals we saw today , and now he will try to teach them his tactics. To dare is to do
They got riddled with injuries and cards... so it's about the spirit and fight instead of going back to fossil football that you guys cry about all the time.
I also think an under valued aspect of this tactic is how it allows the keeper to defend more space and reducing the disadvantage of being players down. Vicario by design is allowed to clean up the balls in behind which is allowing him to have much more impact on outfield play than he would otherwise in a low block. I haven’t seen people talk about this other than mention his brilliant sweeper actions.
The main issue was chelsea couldnt stay behind the halfway line before the ball was kicked. If spurs held the line 5 or 10 yards deeper it would have been harder to beat the trap
I think you have to consider the chances we were still able to create playing with 9 in the high line. Sure the line evetually broke I think we all knew it would but son bentancur and dier all had great chances at the other end as well. Not sure that one is really better or safer than the other between the low block and the highline at least for this team.
I think it's pretty obvious that parking the bus would've been safer. The only thing the high line did was create the chance for son which he couldn't score
anyone who has seen porro and dier in 1 on 1s knows spurs would lose in a lowblock. spurs were missing their strating lb and both cbs by that point. its very different from liverpool in the low block with VVD, matip and konate.
The part about our midfield dropping into the backline is where we went wrong. Nothing wrong with the high line, but our 6 needed to be sat IN FRONT of the backline and our 8's needed to be involved in the press. Granted, a less aggressive press than usual but I really do think we could've contained the situation that way. We lost our shape and tactical discipline. Chelsea are crap but they're not THAT crap. They were always gonna score eventually as long as we were playing a flat back 7. Lol.
Also Klopp has been there for years - he has a team who has trained for playing with a player disadvantage. I don't think that's something Ange has had time for yet with more important priorities.
What your forgetting though is what the score is when you employ the tactic. Spurs were 1-1 so they could choose to employ a low block and cling on to a point , or they could say well its only a point so it may be worth risking a high line for 2 extra points over losing the 1 , so hey just gk for it . If they then had gone ahead perhaps then he might have chosen a,low block. To try and keep the 3. As it was right up to the 92nd minute spurs had 3 chances to score a equaliser . At 1- 1 emoying the low block was virtualy saying we give up and just hope you don't score.
I'm glad that my analysis after watching the game and commenting on the highlights were repeated here. Makes it feel worth it that I got my coaching badge. "From what I could see, I think their game plan was to play high and hope they can clear the through balls, which worked really well considering Chelsea did not score for 20+ minutes. Playing high puts the ball farther from their defense and if they win it back it also allows them to attack immediately, unlike winning it back at their goal where they would have to play out of a press with 2 less men. The issue arose once Chelsea started playing on the wings and their fast wingers and wingbacks could get in behind on the wings where Vicario couldn't go out to clear the ball. Once they get bypassed on the wing, the defenders are stuck running back to goal, making crosses very hard to defend against. At that point I think it would've made more sense to change to a deeper line."
Tottenham had been lucky so far this season I think they really should have played differently to try and get a draw or find a winner from a set piece or counter attack. I guess this is who they are and because of that I think they will drop a lot of points and fall out of champions league contention. There most notable players are attackers but they are not a good team offensively. If they score 3 goals in a game that is a massive performance. Scoring 1-2 at times feels like an accomplishment. Not being able to score and having so many players on the team that make bad tackles is likely going to mean they come back down to reality. It was fun to watch them the first two months of the season but if you lose to Chelsea you suck.
personally i don’t get the criticism. man city have shown to win this league you need to be near-perfect. that means draws are essentially losses now if you have serious hopes to win anything. you might as well play to your strength and try to win every game. away from this one individual game, the high line does work. Klopp got a lot of backlash for it, but just look at how many offside goals have been chalked off - that is the system succeeding, not failing. of course when defenders are in bad form or you’ve lost players the system may fail, but in theory VAR should protect you if you execute it right
with 10 men and in the early parts of the second half it made sense... but with 9 men, Van de Ven injured and the latter stages of a game, it would have made sense to batten down the hatches and play for the point
Good analysis, the only thing I would disagree with is JJ saying that in the low block, inevitably there will be a goal. Chelsea has proven they can't score against that very easily, but they do have a frontline of pace merchants. I don't think there's anything more suited to them than outrunning the Spurs backline until they got their opportunity. They don't have a Hazard, Diego Costa, anyone like that who could beat opponents and will it in the net, they have speed and stamina of youth. I think Spurs could've kept them off the scoresheet completely if they locked it in deep personally. The high line was a ticking time bomb, they had too much pace and opportunities for it not to work eventually.
I've been saying for years just how much of a tactical advantage it is having very fast defenders (along with obvious defensive and technical proficiency ofc). The Arsenal Invincibles are the first example that comes to mind who could play a high line and rarely teams got in behind. Campbell although didnt have great acceleration and could be beaten by sharp players over short spaces over a distance he was very fast and rarely beaten for pace. Ashley Cole was quick over short and long distances so rarely beaten for pace, Lauren too was only really beaten by the top tier speedsters. Then you had Toure who had poor acceleration but was one of the quickest defenders in the PL when he hit top speed. You only have to watch his duel with Obafemi Martins to see how quick he was in that battle with one of the quickest players of all time. Then you had Gilberto as the DM covering who again covered the ground really well. To me if you have slow defenders it limits how you play and always leaves you vulnerable to fast wingers and strikers.
The scoreline doesn't tell the story of this game. If Romero stayed on, I think it would have been a bloodbath for Chelsea. They better get it together before Spurs come to stamford bridge
But it didn't work! Chelsea won 4-1, whereas Liverpool only conceded a last minute unlucky own goal with their low block against Spurs, when they went down to nine men.
Both teams also got a grand total of 0 points playing both ways. Ange just also made it exciting for us the viewers, and that's what the game is all about, wouldn't you agree?
@@moitbeans I'm not sure how entertained Tottenham fans would have ended up if they were pulling this against anyone less than the most inexperienced, unclinical team in the league, against City, Arsenal, Liverpool, Newcastle or Aston Villa this would have finished 10-1 playing like that.
@@moitbeans it's about setting your team up in a way that gives you the best odds of getting a result...as a neutral it was an incredible watch but imagine if a top 4 finish comes down to goal difference. just a crazy thing to do playing this high of a line
@@Omnipotentmonkeythis way of playing will work miles better when van de ven is fit and beat long balls with his pace. If he hadn't gotten injured today it may have been a different story.
The difference between liverpool and this game is that Spurs lost both Centre backs by force along with 3 key players. Played most of the game with no proper centre backs on the pitch. Despite this, managed to hold on till the last 15 minutes. The circumstances matter.
If an out of form, and possibly worst Chelsea side of the past 50 years, manages to put four past you it’s not “genius” or “brave”. It’s just naive and stupid. If Ange had done his homework he’d know that the easiest way to beat Chelsea is to play with a low block, and I don’t think anyone would have blamed him for doing that, but instead he went with the complete opposite.
I've been saying. It took so long for Chelsea to do anything decent against 9 men. Had he just set deep after the second red Spurs win the match. Chelsea are very bad right now
I think Ange was achieving something different than play reactive football like we always did in the past which was boring af and not our original "way". Hes trying to drill his style into the players heads
chelsea were dominated for the first 15 minutes and lucky on the son goal being inches offside. they struggled against the highline and the final 2 goals came after the 3rd chance to equalize missed and spurs morale dropped in the 93rd minute. had they equalized they probably do drop back to close out the game but dier and porro were not going to hold out for 40 minutes defending 9 vs 11. your analysis ignores all context of the game.
Can't believe Spurs are getting praise for the way they played after the sending offs. There is such a thing as playing a high line, but part of that is putting pressure on the ball. What Spurs did is standing in a high line and hoping Chelsea mess up often enough. Defending with seven players on the halfway line in a single row is bad enough when you have 11 players, but with 9 it's just a huge mess.
I couldn’t help but think of the Monty Pythons sketch about the knights that say ‘Ni’… 🤪🤪🤪 Even without arms and legs we would still go at them trying to bite their heads off 😂 In Ange we trust. Thanks for your video JJ
As a chelsea fan seeing ange with 9 men on the pitch against one of the worst teams in the league to breakdown low blocks playing a high line was the dumbest and best thing possible for us. Due to our poor decision making instead of the ending 6/7 goals we managed 4 and Nico hattrick. Couldn’t be happier !
Ange wanted to score through high line he would be able to score and come really close with Son that can run from behind........If Spurs had better wingback than Emerson Royal,Sterling would be blocked also if Son made that chance in the 92' the game would be 2-2(Not Spurs fan Inter fan)
@@ErnoAlias i didn't say 10 player just 1 wing back....... Chelsea spent 600 milion and got cooked by Totenham ........but i understand you must be happy after 1 year of seeing Chelsea socore
I think the real problem here is that it broadcasts that Spurs are going to play that very high line regardless of the situation. It enables opposition managers to 'find out' Spurs by creating traps for them in future knowing that Spurs will not adapt.
Ange tried something incredibly brave but also profoundly stupid and he fell flat on his face. If u are at a numerical disadvantage against any half decent team and the game is level prioritize defending the point, just don't make it easy for them to get chances. Ange is a good coach, but don't try to reinvent the wheel mate. I have heard people criticize teams and mangers as naive for playing well, keeping a high line and loosing a game, Ange is no different. considering the result this tactic was incredibly stupid, Chelsea are poor Infront of goal, but it is Chelsea not Sheffield.
He took a risk and unfortunately it didn’t pay off. But if you watched the game you’d have seen Son, Bentancur, and Dier all had great chances that should’ve been a goal but they were just extremely unlucky. So they could’ve even, unfathomably, won the game. Which they never would have if they sat deep let’s be honest. Also, who gets to decide if he wants to reinvent the wheel or not? Let him do what he wants mate.
As an Australian, I know Ange. He will not compromise. At all. He will continue to play attacking risky football as long as his team is drawing or losing a game. It doesn't matter if there were the minimum 7 players left he would continue to play attacking football according to his beliefs. I also don't think you guys talked enough about how Spurs were still in the game with a chance of drawing and winning until stoppage time. Big chance for Son, disallowed goal for Dier. This is Angeball and he won't change. If people are upset about it they're going to have to get used to it as long as Ange is at Spurs.
Thanks for making a video which explains to people that probably should know better, that compressing space and forcing your opposition to play how you want them doesn't always mean playing with all your players huddled in front of your penalty area. Even defending with 10 or 9 players.
Personally I don't care for Spurs and wouldn't shed a tear if they get relegated as an Arsenal, but that tactic was borderline criminal for any professional manager to do that. Discretion is better part of bravery and if you think you're going to win the game with 9 men by continuing to play your "system" then you're a damn fool.
I feel like playing a high line in a single red card scenario enables the GK to effectively act as the 10th outfield player. Especially when there’s a sweeper keeper involved like the guys said.
They also forgot to mention that spurs created 3 solid scoring chances during that period down to 9 men. If they had dropped into a low block consider how much more effort to progress the ball the entire length of the pitch for 3 favorable chances in the final 3rd. Just think if Dier had not been a fraction offside on the header to go 2-2…would’ve had a completely different feel to the match. Anyway…
@@budgetwriter2675 Do you see when Chelsea scored their 3rd and 4th in extra time with very little time remaining and the spurs players were absolutely shattered They held Chelsea off for a good while they just ran out of energy at the very end
@@alexgallion8112 they ran out of energy because the high line was forcing them to sprint against lightning fast wingers over and over for 40 minutes, how do you people not get this?
Nice explanation but the fact that you had 10 men (your board includes Madison) while referencing 9 men, reduces the strength of your argument. When you remove 1 more player, there will be even more space for Chelsea. Therefore, the argument in favor of Ange's otherwise suicidal approach is that, Chelsea, as poor as they've been offensively, will likely still have won the game had they sat back. Therefore, if you will lose, go down swinging your way. By the way, I support Chelsea.
More than anything, this made Chelsea look bad ignoring the scoreline. That performance against a 9man team was embarrassing considering the insane high line I reckon even Luton would have scored much earlier
It genius if it works, so it was part genius, part shiite. Or it was all genius until it turned into all shiite. Chelsea were confused at first, which made it look like a good idea, but to do that with 9 men is borderline suicide. All the other team has to do is start running from deeper with 1 or both of their extra players. Its how Nicholas Jackson gets a hat trick
The big insight is at 20:08. For Spurs it was pretty much a lost cause so they made an statement. But Chelsea looked embarrassing. It took Spurs losing Van de Ven and Madison, and Romero and Udogie, and Chelsea almost couldn't make it happen.
Chelsea's worst enemy are teams defending in low blocks, which is why they are losing against the likes of brentford ,West Ham and Forest, Tottenham could have easily won a point or 3, if they parked the bus.
It's Australian sporting philosophy in general. Always attack, always go for the win, be proactive, respect the refs decision etc. It's entirely unique in this world. And Ange has brought it to the premier league. It's beautiful.
The problem with a high press is that it will lead to bookings and red cards, as the consequence from the opposition beating the high press is so damaging.
When Spurs were down to 9 men , lost 2 key players to injuries they brought on more defensive players. This meant they didn't have the right players to press aggressively as Son and the Swedish player had to do the highest press and when they didn't do this later in the game Chelsea had more time to progress the ball!!
Do you know the worst part? Spurs could have done nothing but play a low block after the 1st goal and we would have bottled it and lost like the Brentford game!
With only 9 there should have been a lot of those triggers to drop deep and so the game would have been played deeper naturally. Spurs didn’t follow their own triggers properly but Chelsea didn’t exploit it properly either until vey late on.
Great point. Chelsea were gonna score either way. It was inevitable. Ange's strategy simply increased Spurs' chance of scoring. WHICH THEY ALMOST DID......
@@mcnetchaievA high line isn't entirely about speed tho. Its more about avoiding defensive situations as much as possible by timing your triggers well.... Once again, high risk high reward
"Because it's who we are, mate!" - Ange P
nonsense comment. He wouldn't do that in the semis of the UCL
@@jordonbooman9913First let them qualify 😂 Ange and Spurs are getting exposed each game
>It's who we are
> Records the worst performance in the premier league xG-wise since February 2022 with -3,76 xG
Yeah seems about right
@@makskauzny3794did they get two players sent off?
Try this shite vs Man City they would put 10 past this high line minimum
I really think the most critical piece of this was Van De Ven going off. His recovery pace is brilliant and without it, Hojbjerg and Dier just could not get us out of jail the same way. Will be interesting to see how Ange adapts with VDV likely out for quite a bit.
Agreed. It confirms the theory that when the injuries start to roll in Tottenham are going to struggle with lack of depth.
Had VDV not been injured they may have had a chance, but 2 red cards + losing VDV meant losing their recovery pace. It's never good when you have to replace a CB, but having to replace 2 CB's while being 2 men down.. not much you can do there.
Yeah 100% I’ve said it for a while but with Dier if he was quicker he’d be a much much better defender.
@@Luke_Mavin He'd be a much better defender in this kind of system, in a deep block system he's fine without that pace, and trading it for some physicality
🤞 he’s not out to long and Philips and Dorrinton make the step up comfortably
It’s pretty hilarious that Ange’s defensive strategy is rely on the insane pace of VDV to make desperation and cover tackles. 11 games into the season and he tears a hammy… Ange you’re a genius mate.
I think Postecoglou was desperate not to change mentality and the mindset of his players, particularly as it's so early in his tenure. He hinted at it in several interviews after he took over - he needs complete buy-in, he needs the way they play to become second nature to the players, and last night I wonder if his risk-reward decision making was also predicated on future matches. Essentially, if we keep them playing like this in this most desperate of situations, then there should be no future match situation where they start dropping deep, start hoofing clearances long etc. I'd say it probably worked too given the way the fans backed the team and the players have all come out saying how proud they were of the performance. Can you see them sitting back on a 1-0 lead from 70 minutes in a future match? No way, they will, to coin Ange's phrase, never stop.
Exactly. This was about cementing attack as a culture. The heavy loss is worth the price.
@@pennywise4843as an Aussie who’s followed Ange for a long time. That’s exactly that. He sticks to his guns and what he believes football should be down to his inner core beliefs. It’s what broke down his tenure at the Aussie National team. Pretty much told the FA to get f*cked and headed off to Japan.
.. and then they'll find, like Klopp and Liverpool did, that you can't play that way for 90 mins for the whole season and a more nuanced approach is called for if you want to win something. (Although winning something might not be a requirement at Spurs.) It's very fun to watch though, I'll give you that.
Oh yeah. He knew match was over when VDV went off. I knew he was focused on the future. He didn’t sacrifice the long term for the short.
Exactly, its about not allowing the game circumstance to dictate the way we play. Even under extreme pressure.
As a Spurs fan, i just hope Ange can train our players to stay on the pitch
Give him a season and you will see a very special team
😂
Just Romero. Udogie wouldn't have had to make the rash challenge if we had more cover.
@@MikeCOYSUdogie should've gone before Cuti did tbf, but I think both players will learn from last night. Udogie in particular you could see he was basically giving himself a talking to and gesticulating in a way to suggest he knew he hadn't been smart. COYS
😂😂😂😂😂
It was incredibly obvious tactically that Chelsea had to put in through balls down the wings instead of the middle of the pitch. Every through ball down the middle was getting swept up by Vicario. Down the wings, it was outside his arc to reach it. First time Chelsea did this, they scored the winner. They did it again and scored the 3rd.
Spurs only had 9 men though
Chelsea only scored their third mere seconds after Spurs had nearly got it back to 2-2 with Son in the 93rd minute! If Spurs had still had Van De Ven and / or Romero on the pitch even with 9-men they would have still had players fast enough to get Jackson. We ended up with Dier and Royal at the back. Everything went Chelsea’s way.
@@mrorangepeel659"everything went Chelsea's way" mate what? Aside from the injury, everything that happened that game was Tottenham's fault. Sounds like you're saying Chelsea got lucky
@@mrorangepeel659Spurs have only themselves to blame. They hosted a struggling Chelsea side, early on in their development cycle, whilst they themselves are flying high in the league. Instead of just rattling off a routine win (as Chelsea used to do when the tables were turned) they did the most Spursy thing possible and self destructed.
Should have been 9-1 they had it easily beaten if they had any quality in the team they didn't even play good and beat it 3 times in a row
From neutrals' perspectives it's pretty black and white and because as we lost they say Ange's approach was wrong, but had Dier stayed onside with that goal, or Bentancur hit his header a bit better or Son scoring that late game shot, we'd keep hearing songs of praise about how Ange's a genius. I like that he decided to be brave and take huge risks which was very close to paying off. The fact is we created chances and it took Chelsea almost 40mins to finally break us with their 3rd goal which ended all hopes for us. It sucks that we lost to Chelsea, but for most Spurs fans we're happy to have seen those 9 players give their 100% for 100+ minutes on the pitch especially after 4 years of negative football with a fairly miserable atmoshpere in a deadwood squad with very fragile mentality.
or you'd have 2-2 a couple of minutes and then Chelsea would score. a better team would have beat spurs by a far bigger margin.
No, you'd be talking about how bad Chelsea were at converting a genuinely ridiculous amount of chances to score pretty much every time they got the ball.
@jo_magpie realistically how often are teams down to 9 men?
Had to admire that even as an arsenal fan... I was actually torn between wanting spurs to win and wanting them to get battered... for the first time ever a part of me wanted spurs to win.
People really need to acknowledge just how bad Chelsea were in this game. Play this exact same way against City with 9 men and I'm not joking you lose by a record scoreline, and the narrative is very very different.
He's like the anti Jose/Conte they always stay low block, ange always stay high line. Love that guy
I do wonder if Ange did it so the team have absolute clarity about his approach?
It's his first season in the Prem, with new players, clarity of what he wants must be so important and there's not many more obvious ways of showing that he believes in his approach than going down to 9 and carrying on playing the same way.
True
I agree with this take
This is a top comment.
This makes sense, i think it was Harry Kewell that said "with ange there's no black and white, there's just black" meaning he has one system and ingrains it into everyone's heads
so, he got battered 4 lol
Son's chance that nearly made it 2-2 in the 94th minute that got narrowly fingertipped away by Sanchez (as well as Dier and Bentancur's great chances from free kicks...lol at Chelsea defending) is exactly why Ange chose to still play this way.
Spurs would have never touched the ball if they sat back in a 4-4 to defend with 8 outfield players, as basically 99.9% of squads would have done. Chelsea likely wouldn't have ended up scoring 4, but more importantly Spurs never would have had even a sniff at a 2nd goal.
To dare is to do.
YES BRO EXACTLY TO DARE IS TO DO ANGE FITS US
One thing i’ve noticed since last night is the amount of liverpool fans celebrating spurs loss and saying things like “karma” like they were playing rather than chelsea… strange behaviour as they are acting like spurs had anything to do with decisions that went against there team
I'm a Liverpool fan and was so annoyed Spurs lost. As a LFC fan I'd always prefer whatever team who go out and die on their shield the way Spurs did. Was epic.
I wish the internet had a c@nt filter, the way there's ad block or adult filter etc. Think it'd help with what you seen 😅
@@AdamHetheringtonThat's a great idea for a browser extension. C*nt blocker haha
The problem was the way tottenham celebrated their win over Liverpool as though it was their doing/achievement. Rather than take the 3 points, whilst realising that only by certain events they were able to win.
As a Liverpool fan, I think its more aimed at some Spurs fans// I still like Spurs as a club and the way they set up today though, was a shame they couldn't get a result here
@@AdamHetherington bahahah your right mate… tbf i noticed most of it on a clip of paddy murphy reacting to the game (he immediately started talking about the curtis jones red which probably encouraged it a bit)
Maybe it’s just the recency bias from Conte and Jose’s football but if we(Tottenham) continue playing the way Ange plays regardless of sending offs Id be satisfied.
Even if no trophies are won.
Such a Spursy response.
It's not like you were about to win anything anyway. But I agree that Tottenham games used to be entertaining at the very least, until Mourinho and Conte
“Even if no trophies are won” is an easy thing to say as a spurs fan lol
@@jt19933 ayo man. I’ve had to suffer through Nuno,Jose and Conte ball .
Can’t a man just watch something entertaining for once?
The spurs mentality checks out😂
If Spurs played a low block chelsea never wouldve scored cos our forward line is tragic. But spurs went for the win, fair play. Brilliant game
Football is a game of fine margins - on another day, Dier isn't 2 inches offside, Bentancur puts it in from a yard out and Son buries his chance in the back of the net.
The flipside is not taking chances and getting easily taken apart. Having watched Conte's spurs get torn apart when they went to low blocks, I'm glad they have a coach who is willing to take a risk and try to get something from the game. It's really telling that Spurs fans seem more positive about this result than Chelsea's do.
also on another day, Chelsea don't have goals chalked off either...
And on another day Romero isn’t a defensive hand grenade
@@mcnetchaiev Point being, we know that a team in a low block, especially with 8 outfield players, will have a far less likely chance of scoring than a team pushing high. Theres no way spurs would have even found themselves in the position to score if they had sat deep. It almost worked, and posed more of a problem for chelsea than if they had sat back.
@@jacklawrence7331It did not/would not almost work 🤦♂️ Chelsea would have peppered them with plenty of time to go. If Spurs go 2-2, Chelsea win 3-2, 4-2, or 5-2. Playing high with 9 men is naive no matter which way you cut it. Chelsea are bad collectively but they have more talent on their roster than Sh*tspur do. Something was always going to give against Spursy
@@iChoseScylla Erm....not sure why you're being so reactionary - Spurs fans feel better about the loss than Chelsea do about the win, so that should tell you something about where the two teams are at right now.
Besides, Chelsea's whole problem is that they bought loads of individuals with no thought to how they would play together. Spurs is the polar opposite - every player in that team is instrumental to how they play so effectively, which is why the injuries are of such a concern.
Obviously a lot easier said than done, but perhaps an idea would be to "mix up" your strategy during different periods of the game. Low block for 10 mins, then high line for 10 mins etc - Chelsea managed to "crack the code" in the end, but having them solve a changing code would be even tougher, especially with their creativity/finishing issues. Not too dissimilar to how Arsenal change their intensity for different periods of the game.
This is somewhat my thinking too. If I were in that situation probably would drop into a low block only when the opponent had long periods of possession, so Chelsea can’t use their one strength which is in behind. But when spurs won it back they could have countered with son/ Johnson and even if and when they lose it up the pitch, they can than set the high line there and force them to play fast. So sort of a fluid system that moves like the ocean tide depending on circumstances slowing inching forward or backwards to suit the game.
ill rather have him over your ideas buddy no offense
@@thedethrocker8858 fair but Ange’s best idea seems to be to go into a shoot out with his 9 vs 11 and hope he somehow out scores them and wins 5-4 like he’s playing fut champs. Chelsea score 8 in that game if they’re even a little bit better. It’s good to see him stick to his methods just feels like he could be more flexible but credit to him
. his philosophy seems to be to always fasten the bayonets and go over the trenches, anything less is surrender. It’ll be interesting to see how it works out nexts couple games with the both cbs out, might be a drop off
@ttm9227 all I can really say mate that isn't just my bullshit is look at his record and buckle up.....we shall resume 6 months time!!!
I suspect this would ultimately be his game, but we might just be too early into buying his philosophy, which needs instilling to undo years of defensive football. Then again, this is all speculation.
Credit to Ange because he very nearly pulled it off with 9 men, love that guy so much and spurs shouldn't swap him for anyone
Nearly lol
it was just naive not brave, if chelsea's attackers knew how to time a run they would have scored 8. a top team would've hit double digits. why set your team up to get annihilated?
@@themanmachine125 high lines are common amongst all top teams... it's not naive to play modern football instead of sitting in the box and inviting pressure
"love that guy so much" - Hmm, sounds like a parasocial relationship. He seems like a good manager for Spurs but I wonder what effect 2 red cards will have on his next game?
Didn’t know you could love someone so quickly 😂😂😂
How crap were Chelsea? Did someone forget to explain the offside rules to Jackson? That may be the worst/dumbest hattrick in the history of hattricks
There is something admirable about playing to win instead of playing not to lose, even when you're as up against it like Spurs were. Despite that, I think they were flattered by how long it took Chelsea to suss out how to beat the high line. Against a team with pacy forwards who struggle against a low block, Spurs could have realistically held on for a point by sitting deep once they were down to 9 men - Liverpool would have done it but for a very unfortunate own goal. I expect there are some data analysts and probability experts who could mathematically determine which approach would have been better.
Of course, the bigger issue is why Romero and Udogie lost their heads when their team was DOMINATING 🤣
There is nothing admirable about playing to win and losing 4-1, when realistically they could have sat deep and taken a point
We have been sitting deep for past 2 seasons and still concede goals mate😅
tottenham held out longer than liverpool did, also there is the deep next level argument that you allow jackson to score a hattrick so that he has more chance to get picked for chelsea and they continue to struggle with him
its also another chance to build the team identity for 99% of matches when they play with 11 men
People are equating the Liverpool game with this one a lot, and for good reason, not many games have a team down to 9, but what I keep seeing is a lack of consideration for the players each team had at their disposal. Liverpool were able to bring on Konate to shore up the defense and sit deep with him, VVD, and Matip. On the other hand, Spurs lost both CBs and were playing with a midfielder and Eric Dier in defense. There's no way that they would've done as well as Liverpool if they had dropped into a low block.
Sitting back hoping for a draw (counterintuitive to everything BigAnge tells, and trains them to do) makes no sense. Better off loosing in junktime and making a statement that regardless of the scenario, if you're playing Spurs, they're never going to stop coming at you.
“It is better to fail aiming high, than succeed aiming low.“
-Bill Nicholson, Mr Tottenham 🤍
"It is better to fail"
That's all Spurs do, I see why they call him Mr Tottenham
Their very good at failing yes.
@@jo_magpie look at him😂😂😂
@@sonicthehedgehog513 He didn’t fail though
To beat a high line in that situation, forwards should be acting as decoys while runs come from deep midfielders and fullbacks. Runs from fullbacks/midfielders are more effective against super high-lines because it is far easier to remain onside while maintaining momentum and much harder to track.
Exactly, its very basic, yet Chelsea were struggling with the concept and Tottenham figured theyd keep struggling with it
@@danielevans8728true they were struggling but i expect that from young players like chelsea have, one case of that was the cucurella run which was a really dangerous opportunity credit to vicario for holding onto that
i have to say despite the bad result, this was so enjoyable to watch, the teams mentality chelsea or manu can just dream of and its amazing to see considering losing Kane and beign not rly good last season.
Cope
im not even Spurs fan lil bro, im fan of good football and winner mentality@@connorcahill2209
@@connorcahill2209cope with almost beating Chelsea with 9 men? yea I’ll live with that lmao
@@Rachl1284”almost” it was 4-1 regardless of whether Chelsea forwards know how to time a run
@@Rachl1284Spurs could barely beat Liverpool with 9 men and it took an own goal. I don’t get how spurs fans are talking about this match like they won because “mentality.” If I was one I’d be pissed at how badly they gifted Chelsea three points.
Chelsea played terribly and still scored 3 goals against that high line. With quality passing and quality runs Chelsea should have scored a lot more goals.
As a Chelsea fan I wanted to give them a massive bollocking. First half sterling just stood offside for 5 minutes, like he's the guy with pace, he can see they aren't dropping, so he had to make an effort to come back onside. Second half sterling again was mostly just coming to the ball for feet. Again, he's the guy with pace, make a run!!! Then we end up with Jackson, sterling and mudryk all stood on halfway with the spurs players. Like are they f-ing mental? Stand 5-10 yards in your half, and make a run which you can run onto and outpace a stationary defender. Maybe leave Jackson up to occupy, but was just insane really. Then we keep going straight down the middle or too deep and easy for vicario. Finally went down the sides, even though had scored offside goals like this already. Honestly the most frustrating game this season. Worse than Nottingham forest at home, because it was so obvious and easy. For 10-5 mins after udogie was sent off, it felt like spurs had more possession. Most of it was porro rolling around on the floor, but it was very poor from Chelsea during that time, and didn't keep the ball for more than 3 passes. Can see they aren't coherent as a team yet as always checking runs, not playing the pass, then eventually play it and they're offside. No timing.
Basically looked decent from 20-30 mins and 94-97. The rest wasn't great 🙁
The reality is, Spurs were struggling before they went down to 10. Romero and Udogie were lucky to stay on the pitch as long as they did. When they go down to 9 the task is impossible.
So he could have dropped deep, looked awful, got the crowd on his back and lost. Or he could play this high line, force the players to work hard, let the fans see them working for the team, lose but keep the confidence high.
I genuinely think this will work in their favour next week in a way that sitting back wouldn't have.
Keep in mind spurs created 3 great chances and had an offside goal. Ange almost pulled it off and it would’ve been incredible
Keep in mind that Chelsea created even more chances and could have scored a lot more goals if they knew how to time runs and finish
@@realjohndoe317they had a lot of their chances saved incredibly by Vicario so it doesn't really matter either way
And several offside chances where Chelsea just botched the timing horribly. It could have been 4-4 but it also could have been 10-4
Big win for Chelsea. Important for the relegation battle
😂😂😂
Would Spurs have played the same if the opponent was not as disorganized as Chelsea? Against Arsenal/Liverpool/ManCity/Newcastle etc... I really doubt it. One long ball combined with the speed of Salah or Haaland and that high-line is just a group of sitting ducks.
Even against this current Chelsea, clearly this strategy failed. I am not saying the teams should park the bus, but the managers should read the game and react to it rather than "sticking" to a pre-decided strategy.
Though credit to Spurs for holding off Chelsea that long from scoring 👏👏👏 Hopefully they'll warn Romero to get a tad bit less aggressive. I swear he's gonna break someone's leg otherwise!
If we had van de ven with 9 men Chelsea wasn’t sniffing any goal 🤷
They held a high line with 9 men and conceded 3 times in 15 minutes. Ange! What a genius!!!
Well no they conceded 3 goals in almost 40 minutes of play and also had chances to equalize. They conceded twice in literally stoppage time. You don’t have to mischaracterize the game. Spurs and Ange already did enough wronf
@@jasonjc2264 Chelsea's weakness is low blocks so playing a high block against them isn't very smart. A better striker then Jackson would have scored five.
yes but chelsea dont have a better striker or maybe that would change the tactics. If jackson was playing like usually he would have missed even more of his shots.@@jo_magpie
@@jo_magpie well they don’t have a better striker now so they. Also honestly I agree it was bold and not the best choice but we did have dier and hojbjerg at center back and also 9 men. Not as easy as it looks to set up shop. Also we did have chances to equalize before they scored two in later stoppage tome
@@jo_magpie tbf, surely this game showed that chelsea's weakness is playing football.
I’ve said this on another video but I honestly think if spurs had sat back and played on the counter they leave with a draw or win. And before any spurs fans get upset with me, I’ll fully admit to being an Arsenal supporter and I respect the approach in theory but I think ange has to be more flexible and look at the situation. What I’m saying is much more about Chelsea’s specific weaknesses and less about spurs.
All season and even when it was 11 v 11 Chelsea had shown their only threat is in behind and spurs played into that, increasingly more so after each red. If Chelsea weren’t so bad it could have been 3/4 if not more in the first half the only reason it wasn’t is because they can’t time runs and they can’t finish. I don’t think they create any of those major chances if they don’t leave so much space behind. It’s like Chelsea could only hurt you with a small little match and spurs decided to cover themselves in gasoline and give them a bear hug.
yah you aint wrong but as a neutral it would have been boring but it gave us the most outrageous game. Funny enough i was more disappointed at Chelsea in the end
Liverpool had the luxury of not having 3 key defenders missing - they had their normal backline, Van Dijk and matip, subbed in Konate, TAA and Gravenberch so they had the defence ability to just sit back.
@@BruceLee1.0oh definitely I actually turned the game on during the var check for Romeo. So I had it decent time
Yeah I think this as well. It was kind of quitting in a way.
@@kenardy I understand that too but I still think with dier and one of hojberg/skipp/Davies they could have managed it against the Chelsea attack
I like how all the rival fans are mad about how spurs fans and pundits appreciate the willingness to fight and play a risky style. its not your team so why are you so mad about a different coaches decision. Is it because you still are below spurs in the league table perhaps.
chelsea had 4.89xG , not sure the high line actually worked. City would have scored 8.
I would say it worked considering Tottenham didn’t have a worthy center back in the game once vdv was hurt
But that wasn't City was it? and Spurs almost pulled it back, so it almost worked. Chelsea's been having high xGs all season but it hasn't worked for them too many times.
@@callahan_theman all the more reason not to pursue the high line IMO
@@lzl4226 so you mean the high line was only for Chelsea?
@@SangbaranDasgupta I would argue the opposite. Why force a makeshift CB and another guy who hasn’t played since last season to defend for 40 minutes?
I don't think its a question of tactics, It's a question of integrity. Listen to ange's interview after the game, he said even if he's down to 5 men he's gonna give them a fight. That's the philosophy of his football and thats the culture that he's building at spurs. nothing but respect for the man.
Gutted for Spurs. They played so well early on then certain players lost their heads. The injury to VDV was just salt in the wounds and is going to make them far more vulnerable. If their chairman backs the manager and brings in the players he wants for his system then they're going to be frighteningly good. The Son goal (that was offside) was some of the best football I've seen this season.
I think one thing that almost everyone is forgetting is what Postecoglu keeps saying after every game, which is that performances are more important than results at the moment. We're a work in progress. Game are an opportunity for the group to learn and gain experience of playing the way Postecoglu wants. It's simply not the case that every tactical decision will be based on what's most likely to get us the points.
I would also point out that there were a couple of points in the second half where we came very close to scoring, even without the three players who you could argue we've got noreplacements for in the squad at the moment, and with only nine on the pitch.
I'm reminded of a Bill Nicholson quote: “It is better to fail aiming high than to succeed aiming low. At Spurs we set our sights very high, so that even failure will have in it an echo of glory.”
That's just who we are, mate.
What did the team learn by parking everyone on the halfway line and losing 4-1? The line was higher than what they play with 11 men.
@@gooner3681No it wasn't. It was about the same. Look at the heat maps from this season.
YOu can't learn how to play a high-risk, high-reward style of football if you stop taking risks the minute something goes wrong.
“touches in the attacking penalty area last night were 26-32 in Chelsea's favour. “
Chelsea were up a man for basically 45 minutes and Spurs still carved out 3 good chances before the 3rd Chelsea goal. Absolutely worth the tradeoff IMO.
Yeah it was very risky but from a players energy conservation point of view i think it was genius to keep the high line even with 9 men. In squeezing the size of the pitch you reduce not only the distance to goal for the but also the distance players need to press which means its still effective. Less fatigue equals fewer mistake and lapses in concentration in my book.
But it's very fatiguing for the centre backs having to make 40 yard sprints towards their own goal every 3 minutes. One of them literally snapped their hamstring doing that.
And the issue is that most of the time they weren't effectively pressing anyway, so Chelsea players had time and space on the ball to play those through balls.
@@bighamster2 Yeah I will concede that but it was excellent to vicario negating some of that by sweeping. I should have also added that I ment it means to still provide a serious attacking threat.
How was that genius ? The defenders were always running back towards their goal for the ridiculous highline they were playing.
I'm sorry but Tottenham got 2 men sent off and lost 4-1 at home to a London rival. Why they're being praised is beyond me! Chelsea had so many clear cut chances that it could have easily been more than 4 as well!
Entertaiment that all . If you lose anyway atleast made it excited. Tot fan stay untill game end while Man u fan leave the game when 3-0
They lost 3 of their starting backline and played an out of favour cdm and cb at the back. The spirit they showed is good for what it was
@@moitbeansSpirit... i think it was Chelsea's lack of passing and goal scoring ability that took 25 min to start scoring
@@alexcoyg3281 It's literally anges first year coaching this team. He certainly had not prepared them to play as 9 men this early. The fundamentals we saw today , and now he will try to teach them his tactics. To dare is to do
They got riddled with injuries and cards... so it's about the spirit and fight instead of going back to fossil football that you guys cry about all the time.
I loved the arguments, pros and cons but the bottom line is this approach was punished by 3 goals eventually.
Ange is a legend
I also think an under valued aspect of this tactic is how it allows the keeper to defend more space and reducing the disadvantage of being players down. Vicario by design is allowed to clean up the balls in behind which is allowing him to have much more impact on outfield play than he would otherwise in a low block. I haven’t seen people talk about this other than mention his brilliant sweeper actions.
This was less a case of Tottenham being impressive with less players, and more a case of Chelsea being impotent.
Yes, if it was any team over 6th place the result could have been 6-7 to one...
The main issue was chelsea couldnt stay behind the halfway line before the ball was kicked. If spurs held the line 5 or 10 yards deeper it would have been harder to beat the trap
I think you have to consider the chances we were still able to create playing with 9 in the high line. Sure the line evetually broke I think we all knew it would but son bentancur and dier all had great chances at the other end as well. Not sure that one is really better or safer than the other between the low block and the highline at least for this team.
I think it's pretty obvious that parking the bus would've been safer. The only thing the high line did was create the chance for son which he couldn't score
@@arvin9425and considering Chelsea record against low block its just a bad decisión in my opinión.
High line also pressured Chelsea into giving up a couple dangerous set pieces that led to the Dier and Bentancour chances.
@@jeffreytsao5710 i think you would of had a chance at those with counter attacks. Like Liverpool had on Tottenham.
anyone who has seen porro and dier in 1 on 1s knows spurs would lose in a lowblock. spurs were missing their strating lb and both cbs by that point. its very different from liverpool in the low block with VVD, matip and konate.
The part about our midfield dropping into the backline is where we went wrong. Nothing wrong with the high line, but our 6 needed to be sat IN FRONT of the backline and our 8's needed to be involved in the press. Granted, a less aggressive press than usual but I really do think we could've contained the situation that way. We lost our shape and tactical discipline. Chelsea are crap but they're not THAT crap. They were always gonna score eventually as long as we were playing a flat back 7. Lol.
Note Vicario bollocking Skipp after the third for exactly this.
Also Klopp has been there for years - he has a team who has trained for playing with a player disadvantage. I don't think that's something Ange has had time for yet with more important priorities.
12:30 bro what???💀💀💀💀💀💀💀 I’m in public so I’m holding back tears. Ohhh boy.
The high line helped them get so many chances, could have been 4-4
wasn't it 1.9 vs 4.89 xG?
What your forgetting though is what the score is when you employ the tactic. Spurs were 1-1 so they could choose to employ a low block and cling on to a point , or they could say well its only a point so it may be worth risking a high line for 2 extra points over losing the 1 , so hey just gk for it . If they then had gone ahead perhaps then he might have chosen a,low block. To try and keep the 3. As it was right up to the 92nd minute spurs had 3 chances to score a equaliser . At 1- 1 emoying the low block was virtualy saying we give up and just hope you don't score.
I'm glad that my analysis after watching the game and commenting on the highlights were repeated here. Makes it feel worth it that I got my coaching badge.
"From what I could see, I think their game plan was to play high and hope they can clear the through balls, which worked really well considering Chelsea did not score for 20+ minutes. Playing high puts the ball farther from their defense and if they win it back it also allows them to attack immediately, unlike winning it back at their goal where they would have to play out of a press with 2 less men.
The issue arose once Chelsea started playing on the wings and their fast wingers and wingbacks could get in behind on the wings where Vicario couldn't go out to clear the ball.
Once they get bypassed on the wing, the defenders are stuck running back to goal, making crosses very hard to defend against. At that point I think it would've made more sense to change to a deeper line."
I loved that highline!!! It was amazing to watch. (Neutral fan)
Tottenham had been lucky so far this season I think they really should have played differently to try and get a draw or find a winner from a set piece or counter attack. I guess this is who they are and because of that I think they will drop a lot of points and fall out of champions league contention. There most notable players are attackers but they are not a good team offensively. If they score 3 goals in a game that is a massive performance. Scoring 1-2 at times feels like an accomplishment. Not being able to score and having so many players on the team that make bad tackles is likely going to mean they come back down to reality. It was fun to watch them the first two months of the season but if you lose to Chelsea you suck.
personally i don’t get the criticism. man city have shown to win this league you need to be near-perfect. that means draws are essentially losses now if you have serious hopes to win anything.
you might as well play to your strength and try to win every game.
away from this one individual game, the high line does work. Klopp got a lot of backlash for it, but just look at how many offside goals have been chalked off - that is the system succeeding, not failing. of course when defenders are in bad form or you’ve lost players the system may fail, but in theory VAR should protect you if you execute it right
with 10 men and in the early parts of the second half it made sense... but with 9 men, Van de Ven injured and the latter stages of a game, it would have made sense to batten down the hatches and play for the point
Good analysis, the only thing I would disagree with is JJ saying that in the low block, inevitably there will be a goal. Chelsea has proven they can't score against that very easily, but they do have a frontline of pace merchants. I don't think there's anything more suited to them than outrunning the Spurs backline until they got their opportunity.
They don't have a Hazard, Diego Costa, anyone like that who could beat opponents and will it in the net, they have speed and stamina of youth. I think Spurs could've kept them off the scoresheet completely if they locked it in deep personally. The high line was a ticking time bomb, they had too much pace and opportunities for it not to work eventually.
I've been saying for years just how much of a tactical advantage it is having very fast defenders (along with obvious defensive and technical proficiency ofc). The Arsenal Invincibles are the first example that comes to mind who could play a high line and rarely teams got in behind. Campbell although didnt have great acceleration and could be beaten by sharp players over short spaces over a distance he was very fast and rarely beaten for pace. Ashley Cole was quick over short and long distances so rarely beaten for pace, Lauren too was only really beaten by the top tier speedsters. Then you had Toure who had poor acceleration but was one of the quickest defenders in the PL when he hit top speed. You only have to watch his duel with Obafemi Martins to see how quick he was in that battle with one of the quickest players of all time. Then you had Gilberto as the DM covering who again covered the ground really well. To me if you have slow defenders it limits how you play and always leaves you vulnerable to fast wingers and strikers.
"For the craic" - Ange
The scoreline doesn't tell the story of this game. If Romero stayed on, I think it would have been a bloodbath for Chelsea. They better get it together before Spurs come to stamford bridge
This has to be the joke of the century. You know chelsea had the better chance before Romero red, 2 disallowed goals and better xg?
Did you watch the game?
@@stanleyoparabruh Spurs also had a disallowed goal by like a millimeter. Chelsea weren’t completely dominating either. It was end to end
We've had enough of playing deep over the last 4 years. Love the high line. If we are going to lose at least do so trying to win.
0:25 But.. the app’s name? 😅
I can't find the name of that tactical board..
But it didn't work! Chelsea won 4-1, whereas Liverpool only conceded a last minute unlucky own goal with their low block against Spurs, when they went down to nine men.
Both teams also got a grand total of 0 points playing both ways. Ange just also made it exciting for us the viewers, and that's what the game is all about, wouldn't you agree?
@@moitbeans
I'm not sure how entertained Tottenham fans would have ended up if they were pulling this against anyone less than the most inexperienced, unclinical team in the league,
against City, Arsenal, Liverpool, Newcastle or Aston Villa this would have finished 10-1 playing like that.
@@moitbeans it's about setting your team up in a way that gives you the best odds of getting a result...as a neutral it was an incredible watch but imagine if a top 4 finish comes down to goal difference. just a crazy thing to do playing this high of a line
@@Omnipotentmonkeythis way of playing will work miles better when van de ven is fit and beat long balls with his pace. If he hadn't gotten injured today it may have been a different story.
The difference between liverpool and this game is that Spurs lost both Centre backs by force along with 3 key players. Played most of the game with no proper centre backs on the pitch. Despite this, managed to hold on till the last 15 minutes. The circumstances matter.
If ange pinched a draw which he almost did 3 times.. everyone would be singing his praises 🙏
If an out of form, and possibly worst Chelsea side of the past 50 years, manages to put four past you it’s not “genius” or “brave”. It’s just naive and stupid. If Ange had done his homework he’d know that the easiest way to beat Chelsea is to play with a low block, and I don’t think anyone would have blamed him for doing that, but instead he went with the complete opposite.
I've been saying. It took so long for Chelsea to do anything decent against 9 men. Had he just set deep after the second red Spurs win the match. Chelsea are very bad right now
I think Ange was achieving something different than play reactive football like we always did in the past which was boring af and not our original "way". Hes trying to drill his style into the players heads
@@chubs2312no we aren’t lmao we literally dominated the game lil bro. Start forming your own opinions other than repeating the same talking points
chelsea were dominated for the first 15 minutes and lucky on the son goal being inches offside. they struggled against the highline and the final 2 goals came after the 3rd chance to equalize missed and spurs morale dropped in the 93rd minute. had they equalized they probably do drop back to close out the game but dier and porro were not going to hold out for 40 minutes defending 9 vs 11. your analysis ignores all context of the game.
Can't believe Spurs are getting praise for the way they played after the sending offs. There is such a thing as playing a high line, but part of that is putting pressure on the ball. What Spurs did is standing in a high line and hoping Chelsea mess up often enough. Defending with seven players on the halfway line in a single row is bad enough when you have 11 players, but with 9 it's just a huge mess.
I couldn’t help but think of the Monty Pythons sketch about the knights that say ‘Ni’… 🤪🤪🤪
Even without arms and legs we would still go at them trying to bite their heads off 😂
In Ange we trust. Thanks for your video JJ
I mean they were a scuffed Son shot away from a draw
As a chelsea fan seeing ange with 9 men on the pitch against one of the worst teams in the league to breakdown low blocks playing a high line was the dumbest and best thing possible for us.
Due to our poor decision making instead of the ending 6/7 goals we managed 4 and Nico hattrick. Couldn’t be happier !
Ange wanted to score through high line he would be able to score and come really close with Son that can run from behind........If Spurs had better wingback than Emerson Royal,Sterling would be blocked also if Son made that chance in the 92' the game would be 2-2(Not Spurs fan Inter fan)
@@hersliselimaj417If Tottenham had prime Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta, Messi, etc. on the field, they would have dominated the game and won 5-2.
@@ErnoAlias i didn't say 10 player just 1 wing back....... Chelsea spent 600 milion and got cooked by Totenham ........but i understand you must be happy after 1 year of seeing Chelsea socore
@@hersliselimaj417 I'm not a Chelsea supporter but it doesn't matter what you want to say to yourself, the tactic Ange chose was very stupid.
I think the real problem here is that it broadcasts that Spurs are going to play that very high line regardless of the situation.
It enables opposition managers to 'find out' Spurs by creating traps for them in future knowing that Spurs will not adapt.
Ange tried something incredibly brave but also profoundly stupid and he fell flat on his face. If u are at a numerical disadvantage against any half decent team and the game is level prioritize defending the point, just don't make it easy for them to get chances. Ange is a good coach, but don't try to reinvent the wheel mate. I have heard people criticize teams and mangers as naive for playing well, keeping a high line and loosing a game, Ange is no different. considering the result this tactic was incredibly stupid, Chelsea are poor Infront of goal, but it is Chelsea not Sheffield.
He took a risk and unfortunately it didn’t pay off. But if you watched the game you’d have seen Son, Bentancur, and Dier all had great chances that should’ve been a goal but they were just extremely unlucky. So they could’ve even, unfathomably, won the game. Which they never would have if they sat deep let’s be honest. Also, who gets to decide if he wants to reinvent the wheel or not? Let him do what he wants mate.
Worth mentioning that they almost pulled it off. Dier so close with the equaliser and Son was nearly in too…
Love these guys such good analysis always , both legends
As an Australian, I know Ange. He will not compromise. At all. He will continue to play attacking risky football as long as his team is drawing or losing a game. It doesn't matter if there were the minimum 7 players left he would continue to play attacking football according to his beliefs.
I also don't think you guys talked enough about how Spurs were still in the game with a chance of drawing and winning until stoppage time. Big chance for Son, disallowed goal for Dier. This is Angeball and he won't change. If people are upset about it they're going to have to get used to it as long as Ange is at Spurs.
Thanks for making a video which explains to people that probably should know better, that compressing space and forcing your opposition to play how you want them doesn't always mean playing with all your players huddled in front of your penalty area. Even defending with 10 or 9 players.
What a mad man, even with two red cards and your main players out he still thinking about getting three points.
What a mindset Ange.
Us Aussies are just sitting back laughing, ive seen this all before and the panic from pundits lol
@TifoIRL why can you not use screen recording of the screen and continue to use the video of the screen taking from camera?
Personally I don't care for Spurs and wouldn't shed a tear if they get relegated as an Arsenal, but that tactic was borderline criminal for any professional manager to do that. Discretion is better part of bravery and if you think you're going to win the game with 9 men by continuing to play your "system" then you're a damn fool.
I feel like playing a high line in a single red card scenario enables the GK to effectively act as the 10th outfield player. Especially when there’s a sweeper keeper involved like the guys said.
They also forgot to mention that spurs created 3 solid scoring chances during that period down to 9 men. If they had dropped into a low block consider how much more effort to progress the ball the entire length of the pitch for 3 favorable chances in the final 3rd. Just think if Dier had not been a fraction offside on the header to go 2-2…would’ve had a completely different feel to the match. Anyway…
I respect how ballsy Ange was with playing a high line against chelsea who have a lot of very quick players
Balsy but maybe not very smart
@@budgetwriter2675brave or naive. Your answer depends on whether or not you like Spurs
brave ? lmao that was stupidity
, they could have easily got 1 point if they were smart enough to not play highline
@@budgetwriter2675 Do you see when Chelsea scored their 3rd and 4th in extra time with very little time remaining and the spurs players were absolutely shattered They held Chelsea off for a good while they just ran out of energy at the very end
@@alexgallion8112 they ran out of energy because the high line was forcing them to sprint against lightning fast wingers over and over for 40 minutes, how do you people not get this?
Nice explanation but the fact that you had 10 men (your board includes Madison) while referencing 9 men, reduces the strength of your argument. When you remove 1 more player, there will be even more space for Chelsea. Therefore, the argument in favor of Ange's otherwise suicidal approach is that, Chelsea, as poor as they've been offensively, will likely still have won the game had they sat back. Therefore, if you will lose, go down swinging your way. By the way, I support Chelsea.
"Because its who we are, mate", Ange P. (ie, finding new ways to be spursy)
Doesn't work on football manager either
More than anything, this made Chelsea look bad ignoring the scoreline. That performance against a 9man team was embarrassing considering the insane high line I reckon even Luton would have scored much earlier
Ange really improvised the 7-1 formation 0:25
It genius if it works, so it was part genius, part shiite. Or it was all genius until it turned into all shiite. Chelsea were confused at first, which made it look like a good idea, but to do that with 9 men is borderline suicide. All the other team has to do is start running from deeper with 1 or both of their extra players. Its how Nicholas Jackson gets a hat trick
The big insight is at 20:08. For Spurs it was pretty much a lost cause so they made an statement. But Chelsea looked embarrassing. It took Spurs losing Van de Ven and Madison, and Romero and Udogie, and Chelsea almost couldn't make it happen.
Chelsea's worst enemy are teams defending in low blocks, which is why they are losing against the likes of brentford ,West Ham and Forest, Tottenham could have easily won a point or 3, if they parked the bus.
It’s weird because junior soccer in Australia was always a high line and pressing. Watching this made me realize we always played Angeball
It's Australian sporting philosophy in general. Always attack, always go for the win, be proactive, respect the refs decision etc. It's entirely unique in this world. And Ange has brought it to the premier league. It's beautiful.
tottenham held out longer than 9 man liverpool, had chances to equalise and had actually had a possession where they cut chelsea apart
Van Der Ven was pretty much essential for this high line, Udogie too, due to their pace.
“…and then you can knock it up to two big lads up top, and do football like they’re supposed to”
Thank god someone brought up some proper football
the high line was absolute joke, hilarious that some are trying to defend it. teams who attack better wouldve put 8 past spurs in the way they played
The problem with a high press is that it will lead to bookings and red cards, as the consequence from the opposition beating the high press is so damaging.
its the aussie way. we never sit back and try and get a draw.. we go all or nothing
When Spurs were down to 9 men , lost 2 key players to injuries they brought on more defensive players. This meant they didn't have the right players to press aggressively as Son and the Swedish player had to do the highest press and when they didn't do this later in the game Chelsea had more time to progress the ball!!
This would’ve worked wonders against Morata and Werner
5:50 cheers JJ
2 years of ptsd counselling trying to forget that down the drain
20:19-20:50
Perfect. Big Ange is the way.
Do you know the worst part? Spurs could have done nothing but play a low block after the 1st goal and we would have bottled it and lost like the Brentford game!
Yes, but Ange doesn't to the smart thing, he does his thing😂 He'll be gone next season. He could even control his players.
@@jo_magpiemakes zero sense
With only 9 there should have been a lot of those triggers to drop deep and so the game would have been played deeper naturally. Spurs didn’t follow their own triggers properly but Chelsea didn’t exploit it properly either until vey late on.
I do also think that spurs didnt have the players to play a low block considering their defense was dier and the fullbacks
Great point. Chelsea were gonna score either way. It was inevitable. Ange's strategy simply increased Spurs' chance of scoring. WHICH THEY ALMOST DID......
precisely Dier is a CB who can only play well in a low block, he's so slow
@@mcnetchaievA high line isn't entirely about speed tho. Its more about avoiding defensive situations as much as possible by timing your triggers well....
Once again, high risk high reward