Spurs - Chelsea and City games

There are similarities but also stark contrasts in these two games, and I want to explore why Spurs have success against City but not Chelsea. It's not even just limited to these two fixtures within about a month. I saw a stat on the Chelsea broadcast that Spurs haven't even score a goal against Chelsea in the past 6 meetings. That may have been all meetings, or just at Stamford Bridge, but either way, that's not to be dismissed. On the other hand, Spurs have been City's "bogey team" for a while now, with the infamous VAR call in the Champions League quarterfinals the most memorable occasion. So, why is this the case?

I want to give a caveat in terms of personnel, as that does play a role. In the latest Spurs defeat in the league at Stamford Bridge, they lined up in a Bordalas esque formation. For those unfamiliar, that would be a 4-4-2 but instead of traditional wingers, you double up the fullbacks and play two on each side. In this case it was Reguilon and Sessegnon on the right and Tanganga and Doherty on the left. I suppose the reasoning behind this was two fold from Antonio Conte; Chelsea like to dominate the wide areas, and Son was unavailable for Spurs. Usually, as seen in the City triumph, the preference is Son to play off Kane on the left with either Kulusevski or Lucas on the right, forming a front three. If Son isn't there, it turns to a two. Romero was out as well, so the temptation was to play extra defenders, hence 4 fullbacks and 2 CB's. That then leaves the midfield extremely light, and I have a few images to illustrate that (on the tablet). Basically, if Spurs went to press with the front 2 plus wingers, that meant a 3v2 situation in midfield once the first line was bypassed. The images I referred to a couple lines ago show Jorginho receiving the ball with acres of space, as the 2 Spurs midfielders are forced to drop deep as Kovacic and Mount have pushed forward.

One point in general I want to make about Chelsea compared to City is that pretty much all the managers they've had, outside of Sarri I'd say, are "pragmatic". Those being Mourinho, Conte himself, and now Tuchel. Pep Guardiola, on the other hand, has his tactical wrinkles, but he pretty much tries to play the same way every time. It's no coincidence that whenever City lose, or even drop points, it's against teams that are able to press, defend deep, retain possession when needed, and be lethal on the break. It doesn't happen often, simply because he has a ridiculously stacked team, but the formula is there to beat City. Chelsea, on the other hand, don't care about pretty football or winning "the right way". That club exists to piss people off and win trophies. Even in these isolated games against Spurs you see this difference. Tuchel went with a flat back four composed of guys that have all played at CB. Compare that to what Pep did, fielding Cancelo as pretty much a left winger and Walker as an "inverted fullback" alongside Rodri in midfield. I can't take credit for this one (football made simple on YT), but you can see it in the City buildup, where it's a front 6 instead of a front 5, as Pep went for the numerical superiority against Conte and his back 5. It backfired, however, as City ended up trying to cross the ball ineffectively to short forwards, as is often the case, and with one or two guys in midfield and only 2 or 3 at the back, Kane's passing range was able to dissect City's defense on numerous occasions.

Continuing with this comparison, another guy on twitter talks about how orchestrated the football is in attacking phases by both Guardiola and Tuchel. I think, to expand on this point, Guardiola is a league manager and Tuchel is a cup manager. I phrased it this way; Chelsea control the game, while City control the ball. Of course, that's simple and there are cases of each being the reverse, but the point is what I alluded to earlier. City use the counter press to stop teams from attacking, but if that doesn't work, their defensive structure is screwed. That is what Tuchel wants to avoid, hence the multitude of defensive minded players in the team. This wouldn't be as much of an issue if Fernandinho was in his prime or Rodri was faster, but that's not the reality. The first Spurs goal the other day, for example, is the result of Rodri and Laporte both being sucked in, leaving acres of space for Son to run into as Dias tries to keep pace with him, which was never going to happen. To add to that, you then have Ederson, who's not actually good at the keeping part of being a GK, and Cancelo, who's a defender that isn't good at defending. Again, that would rarely (if ever) happen at Chelsea. Even against Norwich, who are terrible, City were exposed a few times, and Rashica was causing them all kinds of trouble when he'd pick up the ball around the halfway line.

One last point on Chelsea and City. It's also not a coincidence that City have scored 14 more goals in the league that Chelsea, while conceding one goal fewer. Guardiola has mastered demoralizing teams in the league, and that starts with beating inferior sides. La Liga in its current state was literally the result of Barcelona and the "tiki taka" style of play, which was countered by high press and "parking the bus". Klopp as well has drastically changed his style over the years to have control of the ball AND the game, most of the time. That's why, despite not having state backing, Liverpool have won both the Champions League and the Premier League. He can play chaotic and beat teams that way, or he can patiently wait out the likes of Brentford and Burnley. Guardiola still doesn't do well with chaos, while Tuchel hasn't yet allowed his team the freedom needed to break teams down. It cannot be a coincidence that all the attacking players at Chelsea are struggling. It's gotten to the point where delusional Chelsea fans actually think the squads Klopp and Tuchel inherited were comparable. It would be one thing if, say, ONE of the Bundesliga guys failed to adapt to English football. But for all three, plus Lukaku and Pulisic (and CHO, but I've always questioned his ability) to ALL look bad, it's clearly the system and game plan, not the players. I could watch a bunch of Chelsea games and find examples of Tuchel misusing these guys, especially Havertz and Lukaku, and honestly I might do that, as it's a good idea now that I mention it. That bit was a rant, but whatever.

Honestly, it's no longer a surprise when City drop points to Spurs. I personally think a draw was the fair result, but I won't complain for a second. I'm more interested to see how Spurs handle games they're expected to win. Burnley and Everton are two of the next four league fixtures, and I'd expect Spurs to dominate the ball in both. Leeds play an open game, so that should suit Spurs. You never know what you'll get from United, so that should be interesting. After that they have Brighton twice, West Ham, Newcastle and Villa, in no particular order. Point is, Spurs are currently suited to play City and Liverpool. Teams that sit back or press high tend to give them problems, so I expect them to struggle in a number of these fixtures. Of course, the points are all that matter, as the club needs Champions League football once again.