• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

OMT - Tottenham Hotspur vs PSG


Here’s a theme-by-theme breakdown of the podcast discussion you posted, keeping the analysis structure clear but detailed.



1. Formation, Shape & Tactical Approach​


  • Base shape: Spurs started with what was listed as a 4-3-3 but in reality operated as a back five out of possession.
  • Flexing in possession:
    • Jed Spence advanced as a wing-back on the left, effectively creating a 3-4-3 when attacking.
    • Pedro Porro was held deeper on the right in “half-spaces,” acting as an anchor.
  • Tactical goal: Limit PSG’s attacking threat by staying compact, using counters to stretch them via Kudus and Richarlison.
  • Effectiveness: Held PSG quiet for 60–65 minutes — blueprint for playing elite, possession-heavy teams (top-six PL sides, Champions League).


2. Individual Performances & Roles​


Wing-backs​


  • Pedro Porro – Thriving under Thomas Frank’s system; attacking quality highlighted, protected defensively by structure.
  • Jed Spence – Excellent 1v1 defending on the left; uses athleticism rather than pure strength; must maintain focus for full matches.
  • Destiny Udogie – More traditional left-back; better in physical duels, link-up play; injury-prone compared to Spence.

Centre-backs​


  • Dorrington (“Dano”) – Confident, aggressive stepping out of defence, long-throw threat; needs to improve passing and decision-making on when to press.
  • Van de Ven – Reliable, strong technically, pace in reserve; main weakness in aerial duels due to timing/attitude more than physique.

Midfield​


  • Bentancur – Controlled possession, worked hard to break PSG transitions, excellent covering runs.
  • Palhinha – Screened defence, blocked passing lanes, gave others freedom to play; leadership presence from the touchline after being subbed.
  • Pape Matar Sarr – Box-to-box engine, key press trigger, vital defensive covering runs; only weakness is occasional looseness in possession.

Attack​


  • Mohammed Kudus – Secured possession, strong physically, great technique; needs to improve final ball and finishing.
  • Richarlison – Strong hold-up play, pressing, intelligent link-up; injury record is main limitation.


3. Set Pieces​


  • Clearer structure and organisation — likely due to specialist set-piece coach.
  • Looked “coached” in the sense of consistent roles and positioning.
  • Already providing preseason goals and improved defensive solidity, but open-play attacking still needs to evolve.


4. PSG Goals Analysis​


First Goal​


  • Created by an elite disguised reverse pass from Vitinha to Lee.
  • Spurs too deep by about 1 metre, overcommitted to blocking Vitinha’s central option, leaving space for the shot.
  • Finish off inside of post — almost unstoppable once struck.

Second Goal​


  • Spurs tiring, allowing PSG to build rhythm.
  • Hakimi’s early pass to Dembele, perfect timing on run to beat line.
  • Low whipped cross across six-yard box — classic “undefendable” delivery.


5. Substitutions & Late Game​


  • Intent: Refresh pressing and hold-up play with Solanke for Richarlison, and Tel as a stretch option.
  • Issue: Both subs struggled to match game tempo; Spurs sat too deep, couldn’t feed Tel in behind.
  • Young bench options (Beraldo, Gray) didn’t impact enough; learning curve for them.


6. Penalty Shootout​


  • Concerns about order — centre-back (Van de Ven) taking early penalty instead of more attacking players.
  • Unclear if much penalty prep was done in training despite knowing format.
  • Vicario guessed wrong on all first four PSG penalties — possibly due to PSG’s elite takers reading him and waiting.


7. Goalkeeper Rotation​


  • Vicario: Strong shot-stopper, average distribution.
  • Kinsky: Excellent distribution, less proven as shot-stopper.
  • Likely “cup keeper” vs “league keeper” split this season.
  • Both share aerial weakness under high balls, an area for development.


8. Big Picture Takeaways​


  • Positives:
    • Shape and tactical discipline worked against an elite opponent for most of the match.
    • Multiple strong individual performances.
    • Set-piece improvement is clear.
    • Deep squad options at wing-back and in defence.
  • Concerns:
    • Managing game state late on — sat too deep, subs lacked impact.
    • Need more open-play goals.
    • Penalty-taking strategy and prep.
    • Injury record of key players like Richarlison, Udogie.
  • Outlook: This system could be Spurs’ go-to for tough away games and select home fixtures against top sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back