Spurs built play in a 4-3-3 shape. This shape can work, of course, but only with real top quality. The shape is synonymous with Spain and Barcelona, for example, because they have elite technicians. However, higher up the pitch, these teams often transition into a 2-3-5 shape.

Spurs stay in the 4-3-3, and that causes a lot of issues. Both Spurs' fullbacks and wingers position themselves wide with the #8 inside to form a wide triangle. The problem with this dynamic is the angles are not conducive to combine in OR to progress play with reliability.

The elites tuck the fullbacks inside the pitch so they attack with 2 inside and 1 wide. This often creates a passing lane for the winger to receive facing forwards. However, at Spurs, with 1 inside and 2 wide, the winger often receives a straight pass down the line.

Here, Spence plays a pass into Odobert who is forced to receive with his back to goal. Then, because Spurs play with no inverted fullbacks, a single pivot, and two #8's high and between the lines, he lacks options to circulate. So the ball ends up back with Vicario.

This clip against Villarreal sums it up perfectly. If we strip it back to basics, it's important to get players close together so they can combine & interchange with each other. It's also important to play in angles that enable that. This 4-3-3 does not.

Plus, because the spaces between the players are so big as Spurs have both fullbacks and wingers in wide areas, the block is very vulnerable in transition. For example, Spurs lose the ball, their #8's are caught ahead of the ball with Spence in no man's land and the #6 isolated.

Thomas Frank's 4-3-3 is miles removed from the elites in possession. The shape goes against the principles that we see the elites execute on a weekly basis - close proximity so the team can combine and interchange with the ball AND counter-press together when play breaks down.

Another huge problem was Thomas Frank's defensive idea. The plan was to invert Odobert onto the right centre back with Spence jumping to the left back and van de Ven coming across to cover the winger. All in an attempt to apply maximum pressure on the ball in a man-to-man idea.

However, that was Spurs' ONLY defensive idea, and it didn't work. Elite defensive teams do press like that, but they also press in other ways. For example, Bournemouth & Arsenal press from out-to-in (like Spurs above), but they can also press from central areas. Spurs did not.

In this moment, it makes a LOT more sense to push one of the #8's on and press in a 4-4-2 than it does to invert the winger, make the fullback jump from the edge of his own box to the top line, and to make van de Ven push out to left back. But Spurs continued to press like this.

Because the distances were far too big for each of the players to cover, Bodø/Glimt had time and space on the ball. And, because Spurs tried to play man-to-man, the spaces to exploit the block were wide open. Zonal protects space. Man-to-man defends the man. Spurs did neither.

So, as the game wore on, Spurs predictably failed to get reliable pressure on the ball. Odobert kept trying to press centrally but it wasn't always possible for him to effectively do so because Spence was often pinned and couldn't back up the press. It was easy for Bodø/Glimt..

They could easily step into midfield and penetrate Spurs' block because Spurs were so man-oriented in midfield despite having no pressure on the ball at the top end of the pitch. Spurs ended up with 37% possession when their idea was to dominate the game via pressing & passing..

What is arguably even more concerning is that Thomas Frank didn't change anything at half-time. Odobert remained overloaded, Bodø/Glimt had time on the ball, & they could easily penetrate Spurs' block. The issue directly led to the first goal Spurs conceded. ALL Frank's fault.

Crucially, though, Thomas Frank has shown he can implement 'elite' tactics. 🔺 De Zerbi-esque build-up patterns, 🔺 Inverted fullbacks with wingers holding the width in a 2-3-5, 🔺 Man-to-man high press, 🔺 Compact, zonal 4-4-2 block. But the current 4-3-3 is nowhere near this.

Football is a ruthless game. Thomas Frank is a very smart man, but he has to adapt quickly. Spurs' recent performances have been awful, & although the personnel is sub-elite, the tactics are supposed to elevate players, not hinder them. Solution = revert to pre-season tactics.

@EBL2017 A lot of talk recently about the jump from midtable to the "elites" regarding Glasner/Iraola and others. It almost always comes down to their In Possession game and I remember reading a lot that Frank had a really progressive style in possession w Brentford in the championship.

@aziztactics Has to improve. It’s really clear.

@EBL2017 Continue to falter? 1 point above relegation last season and now 4th in the league. Thats a bit harsh even for Spurs fans lol

@Klopps_Mug_ Trust me, performances have been poor. Spurs fans are not happy right now.

@EBL2017 As we patiently wait for your Arsenal Olympiakos analysis🧘‍♂️

@chief_sauvis It’ll come sir.

@EBL2017 United should have grabbed Thomas Frank. Can even see him being a manager of Bayern or Real Madrid one day

@EBL2017 3-4-3 is a problem, 4-3-3 is a problem, 4-2-3-1 is a problem. Guys do we see a trend here on what fans actually want

@EBL2017 I love this man