Mails: What went wrong with Spurs transfers?

Mails: What went wrong with Spurs transfers?

It’s a short but fun mailbox. Tactical stuff plus a few quick reactions to another crazy Saturday. Mail us at theeditor@football365.com

The strengths and weaknesses of that 3-4-3
Chelsea vs Spurs illustrated both strengths and weaknesses of the 3-4-3 system.

In structural terms, you gain an extra centre-back by sacrificing a No.10, and generically putting more players behind the ball.

In attack, the three centre-backs allow the wing-backs to push right up, focusing the attack on overloading the opposition full-backs and creating 2v1 on the switch – Alonso/Hazard and Moses goal. The lack of a No.10 to act as a focal point also encourages this. In terms of weakness, the lack of numbers (and a creative force) through the middle means the play can become relatively one-dimensional, and overly focused on counter-attacking and long balls down the channel (first half vs Spurs?). Chelsea counteract this by pushing both Hazard and Pedro infield. Spurs, with Dembele and Wanyama holding, had the numbers and structure to deal with this most of the time (Pedro’s goal was an obvious exception).

In defence, again the midfield numbers in the first half worked against Chelsea – they only had two central midfielders…Spurs had three (including Alli at No.10) and often four (with Eriksen). With the wing-backs staying wide, and limited tracking from Hazard and Pedro, Matic and Kante were often over-run. For the second half, there were still gaps, but as Alli became less effective, and Spurs tired and slowed down, Matic and Kante stepped up (and we all know Kante is worth two players anyway).

Generically, there would also be a concern about this formation against fast wingers in a 4-3-3 formation as Cahill (particularly) could become exposed 1v1 against a winger out wide…but Spurs lack the pace and style to expose this.

Overall, good win for Chelsea…but I suspect they’re not invincible, and from what I can see you need Matic AND Kante to be able to play it effectively…making the other players look like millionaires.
Matthew (ITFC)

On Tottenham’s dumb purchases
As an early 20-something my main focus was trying to impress, and ideally get a lady. Usually it was completely fruitless, largely because I made repeated bad decisions and had shocking, misguided ideas.

One time I thought a black skivvy would be a great item of clothing because it would make me look like an artistic intellectual (something I am neither of). It actually made me look like a skinny, pervy largely unknown member of The Wiggles. It failed. Miserably.

What I needed was to simply be what I was and not try to be something I wasn’t. Play to my strengths and focus on the things I was actually okay at at, and interesting in. And lo and behold, it worked as well as it could for an oaf like me.

What puzzles me is why can’t professional football clubs with high-paid boffins and experts around every corner not be able to do the same? To make my point finer, why the hell did Tottenham buy the Armani skivvy in Sissoko and the discount one in Janssen? Neither are needed, but worse neither make us any better at what it is we are trying to be.

They’re like two gluten intolerants in a bakery.

Tottenham, grow up!
Dr Oyvind, Earth

(After some research, it turns out a ‘skivvy’ is a polo-neck jumper and The Wiggles are an Australian children’s music group – Ed)

Klopp was wonderful but what do you think of Watmore et al?
Fair play, Klopp is fantastic. All I knew about him before was how he appeared in the media, and he seems like a genuine lad and I was a big fan of that part of him. But the way he controlled the Liverpool fans was genius. Had he allowed them to turn, I reckon there’s a decent chance the game would’ve stayed 0-0. Obviously his tactics late in the game helped, but damn…you can see why his players want to work hard for him. Fantastic.

Anyway, the main reason I’m mailing is sort of selfish. I love this site, but, obviously, a lot more focus is on big clubs and big players, cos that’s who the majority want to read about. That’s fine, and you do a hell of a job. I was wondering, though, your Liverpool and Arsenal and Man U fans – you turn up to a Sunderland, or a Burnley, or whomever. What do you think of our players? We talk about Pogba and Aguero and Ozil every day. I want to know what the world thinks of Jordan Pickford and Duncan Watmore, Michael Keane and Sam Vokes, Mbokambi and Snodgrass. Anyone want to offer something on players down the other end?
John (We’ll miss Pickford come February), Sunderland

Headlines you didn’t see coming…
Amongst what I imagine will be a busy mailbox, I thought of a new topic/game. Real headlines that a year ago would have seen utterly bizarre/completely unbelieveable. I’ll kick us off:

‘Jürgen Klopp insists Liverpool can score without Adam Lallana’

A year ago, that would have been a wind up. Any more?
Mike, LFC, Dubai

Lads, it’s Feyenoord
Yep, that Feyenoord. The outfit that finished fourth in the Eredivisie last season, a whopping 29 points behind PSV, and thus deserving of a Europa Cup slot. I know you can only beat who’s in front of you, but – lads, it’s Feyenoord – getting carried away much?
Steve , Los Angeles

16 Conclusions on Swansea v Palace please…
‘cos I can’t work that game out!

Cheers.
Chris, Croydon

Early loser?
Admit it, F365, at 90 mins, you had Bob Bradley pencilled in as this week’s early loser, right? Football bloody hell!
Franklin, (I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes), CFC, Lagos

It certainly made our week
Duncan Castles getting tetchy in the comments section of Mediawatch is the best thing to ever happen on this website.

Keep up the good work!
Minty, LFC