Tottenham and the Doomsday Clock: Just before the hour mark, an impending man-made disaster

Competitive sport is filled with intangibles, but in my opinion, none more so than ‘mentality’. 

Mentality and commitment have been a prominent feature of football punditry for my entire life. As former players make comments on a performance, the topic of mentality is the seasoning. It can be applied everywhere and sprinkled on to benefit any argument. 

Held on for a win. Mentally strong.

Let go of a lead. Mentally weak. 

Concede from a set piece. Were not ‘switched on’.

Win a 50/50 challenge. Focused. Aggressive. 

It provides some colour to any match analysis, which helps to build narrative around particular players or clubs. Narrative is a fundamental part of sport, but I feel it’s not super helpful if you are going into analysis with pre-established perceptions. I found Postecoglou’s comments after the loss to Brighton interesting, not because it represented any new stance from the Spurs’ manager, but because it demands more from already one of the most dynamic teams in the league.

The second half capitulation was as worthy of damning as I think it is worth scrutinising. Postecoglou’s primary comments were that the second half performance was ‘not acceptable’ and there were non-negotiables, which the team lacked including competitiveness and intensity. It was a performance which gave credence to those who haphazardly throw around the term ’Spursy’ whenever Tottenahm lose. There were errors in technique, decision making and losses in key physical duels. All of which happen throughout a game, but become more identifiable when they are condensed into a twenty minute period where three goals are conceded.

The 24/25 season as a whole has felt tumultuous for Totttenahm. A mixture of strong performances, disappointing points being dropped, successful cup results from questionable performances and a number of significant attacking injuries. As is always the case when things are not going right, fans start to look for what is going wrong. The first place to start is narratives from last season. Set pieces & transitions / rest defence. While in-game commentary continues to refer to shakiness at corners and ‘Spurs always give you chances’, that has not really been the case so far. A markedly improved set piece defensive set up and, other than the game against Brighton, an average of conceding xG not far off the top performing teams in the league. 

So what has changed? What is this season’s problem? The new trend appearing seems to be that just into the second half of each game, Spurs are getting tired. Really tired. A level of exhaustion, which means disadvantage on ability checks. Opposition are gaining momentum in games as Spurs’ press drops off. Tottenham tend to manage by riding out this period, by which time the opponents also get tired and then Spurs’ (often superior) fitness carries them over the finish line. However, opponents who have better low block organisation are reaping rewards by hitting Spurs’ during this 25 minute lull and then closing out the game by limiting Spurs chances and preserving their own energy. 

The Brighton match was the worst example of this. The first goal, Tottenaham had forced Brighton’s possession back to Verbruggen, but only Solanke had been able to keep up the press that whole distance. The rest of the team settled into a passive midblock which Brighton manoeuvred through down their left before putting in a ball which Udogie missed his clearance and Minteh scored. Similarly with Brighton’s equaliser, very little pressure on the ball from Spurs, Brighton pass down their left, Mitoma finds a gap in front of a retreating Romero and behind Bentancur where he picks out a pass to Rutter who rides one challenge before finishing. The final goal is a poorly conceded throw in, Udogie loses a duel with Rutter who makes it to the byline and wins a challenge against Bentancur to cross for Welbeck who had drifted between Romero and Porro who were certainly not expecting the ball to have come this far. 

So Postecoglou lamented this performance as unacceptable. One assumption I tend to make is that no team intentionally puts in bad performances. You can get bad tactical matchups, poor physical preparation or a myriad of off-field issues which can contribute to a ‘bad performance’. Especially in the case of the Brighton match, the term ‘complacency’ is being thrown around a lot, but I think it is maybe easier to think of it as a combination of physical and mental fatigue.

If the team is not pressing, not winning duels and switching off when the ball is (or they think is about to be) out of play, that feels like a team collectively seeking moments of rest. I think the question is, does this Spurs team progress by pushing their limits further and further, ensuring that even under fatigue, they maintain this ‘competitive’ standard? Or is this another example of Tottenham potentially benefiting from tweaking their approach?

 

The question is hard to answer precisely because I believe conversations around mentality and focus are so arbitrary. Fans, to a certain extent, can develop a level of tactical understanding, but concepts of fostering mental strength amongst a squad of players is significantly more speculative. 

I personally feel the balance between these conversations within online communities appears tilted towards tactics because there is essentially more that can be said. Points around mentality feel naturally constrained to either damning indictments of the squad and management or drawing a line under the match, saying it was unacceptable and then moving on. 

From a tactical perspective, it is easier to see patterns and draw conclusions. Spurs are fading early in second halves. Why? Their 1st half approach is high intensity in attack and defence. Their lack of wide forward profiles make ball retention harder so they aim to break opposition press early then rapidly move the ball through the lines constantly. If they concede possession with the majority of the team ahead of the ball, everyone floods backwards to defend the transition or they reshape and counterpress. They play all-out, high octane, attacking football continuously. They reach just before the hour mark and are physically incapable of not needing a rest. 

If haIf the team is looking tired earlier in games, a logical suggestion would be to change the approach to require fewer man to man pressing actions and more players behind the ball to ask less of players in transition. Additionally, to aim for periods of settled possession to take the sting out of games, while still being ready to expose teams who allow too much space in behind.

Alternatively, Tottenham could make substitutions more proactively at half time or just after to keep intensity high through the lull period. This is of course easier said than done with the squad containing significantly different profiles outside of the first XI, exacerbated by players currently out injured. 

However, this is what I found interesting about Postecoglou’s post-match comments. While appreciating managers in press conferences are not entirely forthcoming, the insistence was that the players had underperformed, rather than any inference that there was a tactical failure at play. This is not the first time we have heard this kind of rhetoric from Ange. Less about player performance, but more that Postecoglou is still not seeing what he wants across a whole game. It’s who they are. They are only going to play this way. Developing this unnegotiable attitude that the only way is forward, so get moving. 

Last season the conversation around set pieces cultivated a collection of bullish responses from Ange, that there was more to address before set pieces. Nevertheless, Tottenham shifted their backroom staff and have dedicated work on set piece defence. Is this another of those circumstances where the staff will look to implement tweaks or will demanding more from the players push them to a higher level?

Demanding more from your players is not an uncommon statement from managers, but feels like more of a statement of faith. In spite of it appearing like an opponent purposefully struck when they were weakest, the line appears to be ‘give more, do better and the weakness won’t be there to exploit.’ It was often remarked that one of Jose Mourinho’s strengths during his peak years was his ability to foster an ‘us against the world’ mentality amongst his players. Antonio Conte made similar comments. I believe many Spurs’ fans have disassociated from that style of management after several very disappointing years of football, but even within tactical pioneers such as Pep Guardiola, is this push for more what underpins all successful managers?

From the outside, it feels illogical. However, that is sometimes the role of a fan. To cheer on and encourage more, even when reason indicates otherwise. So should Spurs look to make some tactical changes or was this a foundational moment which may define success to come? 

The realistic answer is probably a bit of both, but it made me wonder how tactical tweaks and mental strength - two inextricably tied elements of building successful teams, through online discourse have become to feel almost opposed. 

Beating good teams (especially away) is hard work. It reminds me of a quote from one of my favourite shows. “There’s no different angle, no clever solution, no trickity-trick that’s gonna move that rock. You’ve got to face it head on.”

Postecoglou has endeared himself to many by communicating with clarity and empathy. When Conte and Mourinho criticised the players it felt like a rift between players, manager and club, but I personally feel that even after a defeat Postecoglou described as the worst loss of his tenure, the project feels more unified than ever. Although it is now many games in, we can consider this Postecoglou’s inaugural address for the second season. Ask not what your tactics can do for you - ask what you can do for your tactics.