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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 🙁
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
“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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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 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
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.
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'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.
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
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.
Main argument to keep playing that way with 9 men is you're playing against chelsea. Their communication and team work is laughable. Take a punt that no one even thinks to make an aggressive run from deep.
Villa play Spurs next, it's going to be fascinating to see if after the Wolves loss whether Ange takes a different view tactically and what Emery decides to do tactically as well...
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.
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!!
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
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.
20:37 "Don't try anything different, don't try and create, don't try and do something that maybe just goes against what everyone else is doing" Is this why you killed the podcast :c
Post is tryna be like pep and klopp, "this is how we play blah" except both teams managers are much more adaptable. It was stupid from post to play that way and those goals shipped may hunt them later on.
So how is that rule in existence i.e. where a Jackson can start 5 yards ahead of a CH - ball sprayed out to winger and then he is back ion side 5 yards ahead to tap in ???
Weird point to make but are any of you guys cricket fans? Postecoglu is a massive BazBall fan which is basically the strategy of aggressive insane tactics and trying to swing punches at the opposition no matter what the game state actually demands. He’s talked about being inspired by that before and what they did last night felt very BazBall
Yeah I think this is was the approach too, whether it was smart or not(I would say no in this specific situation) is a different conversation. I’ve seen this strategy in boxing/mma a couple times too. A fighter who either knows he’s not prepared to go the full fight or knows the other guy has insane stamina will sometimes come out really aggressive and try to end it before they get into those muddy waters so to speak in the late rounds.
@@ChunkyKong-47 idk anything about MMA but I know he’s definitely a Basball fan and has said he wants his spurs team to play like the England test cricket team which is basically flat out uncompromising maximum attack at all times come he’ll or high water. It’ll be interesting to see if he gets pragmatic at any stage or not or if he tries to beat Man City 5-0 at the Etihad
@@williamallis6627 I’m Unfamiliar with cricket, have these these aggressive strategies been effective or is it somewhat hit and miss? Also another question just wondering, is BazBall a catch all term to describe all aggressive tactics or is it more of an Australian thing? Basically I’m asking could you say the England test team is playing BazBall in the same way that the Australians do?
@@ChunkyKong-47 England had won 1/17 test matches beforehand and won 13/14 after they started, usually in fairly outrageous fashion. And it’s named after the new coach who came in between the two periods Brendon McCullum, nicknamed ‘Baz’. No one has ever really come close to playing test cricket with the level of aggression England are at the moment Australia are known for being brash and aggressive but England are several levels beyond that. If it were a football match they’d play a high line with 9 men and try and win 5-0 anyway as well. And the fact Ange is on the record as wanting to emulate that I think is interesting
@@ChunkyKong-47 we had an Ashe’s series after the 13/14 wins and drew 2-2 in a 5 match series. Australia are the best side in the world, We lost two games by razor thin margins, won 2 close matches ourselves and were slaughtering them in the other match then it rained for two days which meant the game was drawn when it was finished as a meaningful contest but the game wasn’t completely finished off in the time we had
It was just absolutely baffling to me why they didn't force this inept Chelsea team to break them down. They were already getting frustrated with the high line. Imagine a game where Chelsea are frustrated at 1-1 at 80 minutes and you have Kulusevski & Son on the break. Liverpool did incredibly well vs spurs with 9 men with the low block and were unfortunate to lose, and spurs are a good team this year. Ludicrous.
Liverpool probably put the best defence you could have with 9 men with a much, much better backline then what was on the pitch for spurs, and they still ultimately lost. If you have 9 men you should lose. Like I wonder if anyone has ever won or drawn with 9 with so long left to go. Isn't it refreshing that there is something new? and that up until the 93rd minute with sons chance it almost worked? Football is for the fans and while the PGMOL may forget that I'm glad there are managers in this league who don't.
it's just who we are mate, it is who we are and who we will be for as long as I am here... if we go down to five men mate we will have crack. ... Big ange ❤❤❤❤❤ I am a city fan.. But love the style .. I never see that kind of high line..
Spur had 2 very good defensive coaches and guess what’s. They alway conceive goal at the 2nd halve and they can bottle a 2-3 goal lead. So spur never really good at defensive. Angie want spur to play like big team and I’m sure in 2-3 years his tactics will be much better when he’s fully adapt to premier league teams.
i understand its more entertaining to watch attacking football but i wonder if tottenham fans would still be happy if spurs were getting losing results with ange's tactics instead of having a successful season so far. its all hindsight but if the results dont come, every manager including conte gets sacked if they dont shift their tactics based on situations in games. as good as ange has been so far, if he is going to be rigid about his tactics no matter what the situation calls for, he may not get the 2-3 years he needs to build a title contending team. as with all managers, football is not a set and forget game. other managers will figure out a way to crack ange's tactics and he will need to eventually adjust to counter those managers like a game of chess. it all depends on how u define "trying things" for ange since all he does is play his style which is attack with high press. for him, "trying things" could mean playing a little more defensively with less players on the pitch. villa is a team that closer defines a team that "tries things." in conclusion, i understand the sentiment of tottenham fans but in hindsight it seems ange was too rigid on his tactical ideas as conte was (although they had different styles). u can view "trying things" as doing something different from what the norm is in what most teams do, but can also view "trying things" as taking a risk and deviating from what ange normally on situational basis. like i mentioned, its all hindsight but 4-1 at home to a team that struggles in scoring is objectively a failure in result no matter how "proud" or "brave" u felt the team was. i guess if the fans r happy, the results dont matter. i just hope the fans will stay happy with this approach even if ange starts losing more as other managers figure out ways to counter his game.
fixed game for Chelsea to give spurs first loss, I have never seen a team with 9 men at 1-1 play with a high line and attack, ridiculous game its turned into no longer watching fixed premier league
"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 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
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
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.
He's like the anti Jose/Conte they always stay low block, ange always stay high line. Love that guy
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😂
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.
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
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 😂😂😂
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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 🙁
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?
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.
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 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.
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
“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.
I loved the arguments, pros and cons but the bottom line is this approach was punished by 3 goals eventually.
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.
Ange is a legend
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.
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.
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...
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.
The high line helped them get so many chances, could have been 4-4
wasn't it 1.9 vs 4.89 xG?
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.
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.
12:30 bro what???💀💀💀💀💀💀💀 I’m in public so I’m holding back tears. Ohhh boy.
I loved that highline!!! It was amazing to watch. (Neutral fan)
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.
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
"For the craic" - Ange
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I mean they were a scuffed Son shot away from a draw
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
Love these guys such good analysis always , both legends
Doesn't work on football manager either
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.
"Because its who we are, mate", Ange P. (ie, finding new ways to be spursy)
“…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
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
20:19-20:50
Perfect. Big Ange is the way.
Ange really improvised the 7-1 formation 0:25
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.
This would’ve worked wonders against Morata and Werner
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.
tottenham held out longer than 9 man liverpool, had chances to equalise and had actually had a possession where they cut chelsea apart
Ange: Rule #1 - There is no plan B. Rule #2 - We never stop.
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.
“Vicariò… the final boss”
I like that one and so true!
Main argument to keep playing that way with 9 men is you're playing against chelsea. Their communication and team work is laughable. Take a punt that no one even thinks to make an aggressive run from deep.
@TifoIRL why can you not use screen recording of the screen and continue to use the video of the screen taking from camera?
5:50 cheers JJ
2 years of ptsd counselling trying to forget that down the drain
Villa play Spurs next, it's going to be fascinating to see if after the Wolves loss whether Ange takes a different view tactically and what Emery decides to do tactically as well...
its the aussie way. we never sit back and try and get a draw.. we go all or nothing
It’s because they chill like that
0:01 - 'Spurs beat Chelsea'...? Bruhhh
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.
Yes you say this,but most of our new first team have not played with the low block system.
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.
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!!
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
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.
Spurs missed two glaring chances with just 9men on the pitch
Micky Van de Ven - ten games in the PL and is one of the best defenders in the world. Christ.
The evidence will surely suggest going to a low block gives you more chance of points than a high line when down to 10 or 9 men.
Did u say Spurs beat Chelsea?? 0:03
20:37 "Don't try anything different, don't try and create, don't try and do something that maybe just goes against what everyone else is doing"
Is this why you killed the podcast :c
Do when you're going forward it's like 3 at the back 7 up top
The line is high because it wraps quicker around the neck. They are known to choke.
Post is tryna be like pep and klopp, "this is how we play blah" except both teams managers are much more adaptable. It was stupid from post to play that way and those goals shipped may hunt them later on.
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
As a chelsea fan I can’t believe how lucky we were that spurs are the way they are mate
How high are you?
Spurs defence : Yes
So how is that rule in existence i.e. where a Jackson can start 5 yards ahead of a CH - ball sprayed out to winger and then he is back ion side 5 yards ahead to tap in ???
Not active during the initial phase of play. After a winger touches it, it becomes a different phase.
"Ange is on a mission to save football" - hippie spurs channel
Weird point to make but are any of you guys cricket fans? Postecoglu is a massive BazBall fan which is basically the strategy of aggressive insane tactics and trying to swing punches at the opposition no matter what the game state actually demands. He’s talked about being inspired by that before and what they did last night felt very BazBall
Yeah I think this is was the approach too, whether it was smart or not(I would say no in this specific situation) is a different conversation. I’ve seen this strategy in boxing/mma a couple times too. A fighter who either knows he’s not prepared to go the full fight or knows the other guy has insane stamina will sometimes come out really aggressive and try to end it before they get into those muddy waters so to speak in the late rounds.
@@ChunkyKong-47 idk anything about MMA but I know he’s definitely a Basball fan and has said he wants his spurs team to play like the England test cricket team which is basically flat out uncompromising maximum attack at all times come he’ll or high water. It’ll be interesting to see if he gets pragmatic at any stage or not or if he tries to beat Man City 5-0 at the Etihad
@@williamallis6627 I’m Unfamiliar with cricket, have these these aggressive strategies been effective or is it somewhat hit and miss? Also another question just wondering, is BazBall a catch all term to describe all aggressive tactics or is it more of an Australian thing? Basically I’m asking could you say the England test team is playing BazBall in the same way that the Australians do?
@@ChunkyKong-47 England had won 1/17 test matches beforehand and won 13/14 after they started, usually in fairly outrageous fashion. And it’s named after the new coach who came in between the two periods Brendon McCullum, nicknamed ‘Baz’. No one has ever really come close to playing test cricket with the level of aggression England are at the moment Australia are known for being brash and aggressive but England are several levels beyond that. If it were a football match they’d play a high line with 9 men and try and win 5-0 anyway as well. And the fact Ange is on the record as wanting to emulate that I think is interesting
@@ChunkyKong-47 we had an Ashe’s series after the 13/14 wins and drew 2-2 in a 5 match series. Australia are the best side in the world, We lost two games by razor thin margins, won 2 close matches ourselves and were slaughtering them in the other match then it rained for two days which meant the game was drawn when it was finished as a meaningful contest but the game wasn’t completely finished off in the time we had
It was just absolutely baffling to me why they didn't force this inept Chelsea team to break them down. They were already getting frustrated with the high line. Imagine a game where Chelsea are frustrated at 1-1 at 80 minutes and you have Kulusevski & Son on the break. Liverpool did incredibly well vs spurs with 9 men with the low block and were unfortunate to lose, and spurs are a good team this year. Ludicrous.
Liverpool probably put the best defence you could have with 9 men with a much, much better backline then what was on the pitch for spurs, and they still ultimately lost. If you have 9 men you should lose. Like I wonder if anyone has ever won or drawn with 9 with so long left to go.
Isn't it refreshing that there is something new? and that up until the 93rd minute with sons chance it almost worked? Football is for the fans and while the PGMOL may forget that I'm glad there are managers in this league who don't.
How can it be genius when liverpool where way more successful with 9 men when they sit back ?
Floppenham got humbled.
Ahhh ole Mickie 'Hamstring' van de Ven. He won't be running backwards or forwards any time soon :(
it's just who we are mate, it is who we are and who we will be for as long as I am here... if we go down to five men mate we will have crack. ... Big ange ❤❤❤❤❤ I am a city fan.. But love the style .. I never see that kind of high line..
Winless in 5 🔥🔥🔥 its who we are mate
Spur had 2 very good defensive coaches and guess what’s. They alway conceive goal at the 2nd halve and they can bottle a 2-3 goal lead. So spur never really good at defensive. Angie want spur to play like big team and I’m sure in 2-3 years his tactics will be much better when he’s fully adapt to premier league teams.
I'm loving big Ange instead
i understand its more entertaining to watch attacking football but i wonder if tottenham fans would still be happy if spurs were getting losing results with ange's tactics instead of having a successful season so far. its all hindsight but if the results dont come, every manager including conte gets sacked if they dont shift their tactics based on situations in games. as good as ange has been so far, if he is going to be rigid about his tactics no matter what the situation calls for, he may not get the 2-3 years he needs to build a title contending team. as with all managers, football is not a set and forget game. other managers will figure out a way to crack ange's tactics and he will need to eventually adjust to counter those managers like a game of chess. it all depends on how u define "trying things" for ange since all he does is play his style which is attack with high press. for him, "trying things" could mean playing a little more defensively with less players on the pitch. villa is a team that closer defines a team that "tries things." in conclusion, i understand the sentiment of tottenham fans but in hindsight it seems ange was too rigid on his tactical ideas as conte was (although they had different styles). u can view "trying things" as doing something different from what the norm is in what most teams do, but can also view "trying things" as taking a risk and deviating from what ange normally on situational basis. like i mentioned, its all hindsight but 4-1 at home to a team that struggles in scoring is objectively a failure in result no matter how "proud" or "brave" u felt the team was. i guess if the fans r happy, the results dont matter. i just hope the fans will stay happy with this approach even if ange starts losing more as other managers figure out ways to counter his game.
I'm not sure where a win is coming from with 9 men
The absolute best combo in Football Analysis in the World
*right after Poet & Vuj
fixed game for Chelsea to give spurs first loss, I have never seen a team with 9 men at 1-1 play with a high line and attack, ridiculous game its turned into no longer watching fixed premier league