Asymmetric Systems, Amending Wide Triangles, and Forcing “Unlucky” Goals
When coaching, my mentor told me not to use the term “unlucky”. I asked him, “Why is that?” He answered, “Because there’s usually a reason for an outcome that appears on the pitch. I see players facing the sky and kicking the ball with their toes. The pass goes everywhere but the coach says ‘Unlucky!’ That’s not unlucky!”
I think this also applies to analysis. By going deeper than just saying it was unfortunate, we can maybe prevent a similar situation from happening again.
To understand what actually happened in the FA Cup tie, I go over:
1, Reasons behind 2 of the conceded Goals
2, Asymmetric attacking structure and wide triangles formed by it.
3, Exploring the substitutions made in relation to the wide triangles.
Defensive Transition: Justifying “unlucky” goals
Brighton was able to defend against Spurs’s organized attack, but the problem was obviously within how they defended counterattacks. Aside from Son’s bursting run which seems unstoppable, the first two goals actually have some reasoning behind it which led to the “unlucky” goals.
1st Goal: 13’ Harry Kane
The first goal Brighton conceded looks exactly alike to the goal they conceded against Leicester before the international break. It is similar in a way that it both comes from Webster’s lost ball, but moreover, it’s important to note that both attacking teams are able to utilize the space around the DM.
Although Lallana is very good at applying pressure which sees him being used as a DM in recent games, it is incomparable to Bissouma’s ability to close down on attackers and get the tackle in.
There’s also credit to Conte’s disciplined defense. Even though Groβ is required to drop quite far from his basic position, Ben Davies had a clear task of tracking him.
As a result, Brighton changed their personnel around the 29th minute mark, Bissouma moving to DM, Moder to left CM, and Lallana to AM.
2nd Goal: 24’ Solly March (OG)
It seems as though the 2nd goal is the most “unluckiest” out of all the goals scored in the match, but it’s actually one that best represents Spurs’s plan and a rule that must not be broken when playing as Brighton’s WB.
As soon as Spurs won the ball, it was clear that their WB, Royal and Reguilon, had the task of sprinting aggressively forward. This was done to attack space behind Brighton’s deep and wide WBs.
From Brighton’s perspective, there’s one rule which a WB on the far side can’t break which is to compress towards the far half lane when attacking in the final third.
This allows for more players in the box or surrounding it, as well as quicker regain of possession. In the scene which led to the 2nd goal, we can see March positioned far wide.
In addition to Spurs’s designed counter-attack to have both WBs sprinting forwards, they were able to progress the ball smoothly, leading to the deflection which went over Sanchez’s head and into the goal.
Asymmetric Attacking Structure: 3–1–5–1
Wide Triangles
From their 5–3–2 defending structure, they adapted into a 3–1–5–1 when in possession. This was asymmetric, meaning that the 3 CB tilted towards the left hand side. It made the back line look a bit like 4 at the back without a right FB.
In relation to that, space beside Webster opened up for GroB to drop off. As Son provided a massive force forward for Spurs in possession, this helped Groβ receive in space behind Son. CF or the AM filled in for his position to receive in the pocket (behind the gap between opponent midfield).
As a result of the left-sided 3 at the back and the dynamism on the right hand side, a triangle in the wide areas is formed. This is a key point that aids Brighton’s progression in the middle 3rd and finishing in the final 3rd. It also helps us understand the reasoning behind Potter’s changes throughout the match.
Amending the Wide Triangles
Substituion is an excellent method not just to bring on fresh legs but also to create different dynamism in certain areas of the pitch. This is exactly what Graham worked on to solve different kinds of problems in-game.
Although the end result didn’t come off, it’s worthwhile examining what might have been going through his head through events happening on the pitch to understand some of the substitutions he decided to make.
46’ Veltman in / Lallana out
This change saw the wide triangle on the right hand side change slightly as Veltman was brought in as a right FB. With the initial set up on the right, GroB did drop off but the problem was the follow-up movement meant to be done by CF or AM.
Because they joined the attack on the left hand side as well, there were times when GroB and Lamptey were left by themselves. Even if Brighton was able to use Lamptey’s individual capability to play past the opponent, most of the attack in the final 3rd was guided out wide with the lack of players positioned centrally.
By having Veltman in as a proper RB, it lost the dynamism but assured that Groβ could move higher around the pocket, and make seam runs in between opponent WB and CB. A consistency was established of having more than 3 players trying to make scoring chances down the right side.
Also, a different kind of rotation was performed on the right side from the 2nd half; Lamptey making diagonal runs and Groβ moving out wide from the pocket. With Ben Davies tracking Groβ wherever he went as stated previously, it opened up the gap in Spurs’s defensive line. Rather than exploiting it through vertical rotations, Brighton tried to attack it using horizontal rotation.
61’ Caicedo in / March out
Now, we see tweeks on the left hand side. Was the attack on the left not working? Yes, a little bit. Why? Because as Brighton progressed higher up the pitch they encountered more situation where March was forced to tuck inside. This is not ideal because he’s more of a player that presents his strength in 1vs1 duels out wide.
Tasks given to Caicedo was simple but different to one given to March. It was to position in behind Spurs’s midfield gap to receive in between the lines. This opened up the wide lane for Cucurella, and worked well with Moder / Maupay pinning the defensive line. He was also given freedom to drop in front of their midfiled line when needed to.
70’ Welbeck in / Lamptey out | 79’ Ferguson in / Moder out
It’s now time to add some height to Brighton’s attack with the scoreline in favor of Spurs by 2 at this moment. This saw both triangles being ammended into a similar shape which looks like this:
With the change made in the 61st minute, it was just a matter of bringing on a CF instead of Moder on the left side. By positioning within the back line, the CFs can provide a valid option for a cross.
In this triangle, the one providing width need to have the quality of sending accurate crosses inside the box which I personally think is an attribute that Lamptey lacks. It is important to note that Lamptey has been used for the full 90 minutes only twice over the course of the season which is an interesting factor to look into as well.
So these were some ways Brighton tried to influence their team through their substitutions, an asymmetric attacking structure to exploit Spurs’s weakness and how some of the goals weren’t necessarily 100% “unlucky”.
Thanks for reading as always!
Yuma
P.S. Here are some articles on some topics I touched on in this piece.
