Chelsea moved the ball forward, passing to Moises Caicedo in Tottenham`s half. There was no immediate pressure, and Tottenham`s defenders were slowly retreating. Chelsea then passed the ball wide to Pedro Neto. A defender was nearby but didn`t apply pressure. Neto looked up and saw his teammates open. With no pressure, he should have easily found Cole Palmer or Nicolas Jackson, but he overhit the pass, delaying Tottenham`s inevitable concession.
It was clear Tottenham would concede. A team that doesn`t prioritize defending their back post and seems to have lost the identity their manager was building is unlikely to keep a clean sheet.
While Ange Postecoglou`s team was never like the `85 Chicago Bears in defense, they were at least working towards a clear plan in better times. Tottenham used to press opponents intensely and with numbers. If you bypassed the press, you might get a good shot, but it was a risk worth taking for Tottenham. Winning the ball back meant a high chance for them to score.
When was the last time Tottenham played with that intensity? Against Chelsea, there was no sign of urgency from a team that last played 18 days prior. By the end of the game, Chelsea had regained possession in Tottenham`s final third seven times, compared to Tottenham`s four. While this aggressive style isn`t mandatory, earlier in the season, with a severe injury crisis, Postecoglou faced questions about his high defensive line and aggressive pressing. Without key defenders, Tottenham adapted and became a weaker team, which was understandable.
Now, Cristian Romero, Micky van de Ven, Guglielmo Vicario, and Destiny Udogie are all playing, yet their defense is still disorganized. It`s as if Tottenham are confused about the concept of “rest defense.”
Chelsea often gained possession simply because Tottenham gave it away. They then faced a Tottenham defense that was slow to react and didn`t effectively hinder them. Moving the ball through midfield, primarily through Rodrigo Bentancur, Chelsea encountered Tottenham`s supposed first-choice back four.
Tottenham`s defensive actions seemed weak. Runners between the fullback and center back were unmarked. Palmer had space to reach the byline whenever he wanted. A more clinical team than Chelsea would have secured the win much earlier than Enzo Fernandez`s goal from Palmer`s cross in the second half. Jadon Sancho`s performance, in particular, suggested Chelsea might have been better off not signing him at all. One strong shot tested Vicario, but many attacks fizzled out on Chelsea’s left side of the box.
Perhaps Tottenham`s defensive issues would be less critical if their attack was as potent as it was earlier in Postecoglou`s tenure. However, their attack has also declined recently. Since January, they rank 16th in the league for non-penalty expected goals per game (1.1). Before Robert Sanchez`s late save against Heung-min Son, they hadn`t created any significant chances to improve this statistic.
Instead, their ineffective attack worsened the tension between Postecoglou and Tottenham`s traveling fans. While much fan anger was directed at chairman Daniel Levy, the substitutions of Wilson Odobert and Lucas Bergvall for Brennan Johnson and Pape Matar Sarr led to chants of `You don`t know what you`re doing` from some fans. When Sarr scored a long-range goal moments later, Postecoglou responded by cupping his ear towards the away fans.
This incident could easily be featured on sports news, reflecting on Postecoglou`s time at Tottenham and how a promising start based on principles and energy has become something undefined. Twenty losses in all competitions, closer to 18th place than 7th, and another St. Totteringham`s Day for Arsenal fans. Furthermore, if the defense doesn`t improve quickly, a Europa League exit is likely soon.
