In a new feature we're hoping to make a regular part of LFW next season, Neil Dejyothin analyses where the Spurs game was won and lost and looks ahead to the key tactical battles at Chelsea this weekend.

How did QPR beat Tottenham?

The preparation and execution was spot on, with a little bit of lady luck thrown in.

It started by Joey Barton cleverly switching the teams around for kick-off after we won the toss, so Spurs were playing directly into the low hanging sunlight, which was a real problem for any player facing into it. I happened to walk across the pitch at half-time, having done a pitchside presentation on behalf of QPR1st who donated some money to the QPR Girls set up for their upcoming tour of Denmark , and when I looked over to the away end, the glare from the sun was so intense that I could barely see anything at all.

Then we deployed the perfect tactic for the conditions by putting the Spurs defence and goalkeeper under pressure whenever they had the ball. They were struggling to see, so it was easier to pressurise them knowing that they had to be extra careful with their passes.

When you add in the fact that they've got an aging backline, they struggled to cope with our tenacity and it was one of the reasons why Brad Friedel also kicked so many balls into touch because he couldn't see properly and didn't want to take any risks. We rushed and harried them well to the point they became nervous and jittery with Jamie Mackie typically setting the tone.

The free kick that led to the goal was a little bit fortunate in the way that it went for us, but was probably right by the letter of the law - and we know all too well about the letter of the law given some of the decisions that have gone against us.

It was actually superbly executed. I can usually always tell who is going to be striking the ball, just by the way players stand and what their body language is like. If you pay close attention to the way muscles are relaxed or tensed and how they set the angle between them and the ball, you can usually spot the kicker. And on this occasion, half way before Adel Taarabt struck the ball, I still thought Taye Taiwo was the one who would be hitting it so the deception on this occasion was excellent. Midway through however I suddenly realised it was going to be Taarabt, and from there I knew we had a chance because of the surprise element. And that along with the sun all helped to give us that crucial lead to hang onto.

After that, we played a totally different game and one that required a shift in mentality. The transition isn't easy to make sometimes, but we are good at playing with our backs to the wall and trying to pinch something on the counter. It suits our style of play and players, but at the same time, Spurs lacked the energy levels to penetrate and I was pretty confident we could hold on. That shift from one style of play to the next is something we have struggled to come to terms with under Hughes, but this time, they got to grips with it.

The three key players were Taye Taiwo for an excellent and committed performance, Adel Taarabt for producing the goods when needed and Joey Barton, for a quietly efficient performance in the midfield. His battle with Scott Parker went relatively unnoticed, but he was ready for every dual he encountered with the one time England captain and played to his strengths by keeping it simple and tidy. Parker was unable to influence proceedings as much as he would have liked in a crowded midfield area and that's credit to us.

Hodgson v Redknapp

At West Brom last week QPR regularly found themselves troubled in wide areas. Roy Hodgson lined up with Jerome Thomas on one side, Chris Brunt on the other and allowed Peter Odemwingie to wander freely behind Fortune the lone striker. Billy Jones often came forward from right back to join in with Thomas' raids down the right. The effect was to outnumber QPR in wide areas where Taiwo's attacking was severely restricted and Onuoha looked wholly uncomfortable. Which rather begs the question why Spurs approached the game on Saturday so differently?

Modric, Sandro and Parker – whether deliberately or otherwise – formed a narrow trio in the centre of the park giving Taiwo, Diakite and Taarabt acres of space to attack Spurs in wide areas which in turn restricted the forward movements of Walker. On the other side Jamie Mackie's presence caused Assou-Ekotto all sorts of problems and he won his dual, both in an attacking and defensive sense, and nullified the Spurs man's forward play.

Joey Barton won his dual with Scott Parker, but we allowed Spurs to have the ball deep near their central defenders and higher up the pitch. They can usually dictate and penetrate from this position, but they need the aid of their fullbacks overlapping to pull opposing players out of position. Instead, they always had a sea of QPR players in front of them and struggled to pick them out. They only had one moment of success in the first half when a quick three or four one-touch passing move cut us open, but we closed off all the gaps after that and they couldn't repeat it.

While their wide men kept coming inside, on the occasions that Gareth Bale did stay wide he was often blocking Kyle Walker from making overlapping runs on the outside of him. Instead, Walker came in on Bale's inside and was tracked really well by our players, further exacerbating the problem of their narrowness, nullifying his threat and forcing passes to him into areas where we had players waiting to engage. Bale came on the inside because when we did let him cross once or twice he didn't find the quality in his delivery to hurt us and was crossing to a small striker in Jermain Defoe in any case, which also worked in our favour. He played left and right and alternated regularly between the two with little effect.

I thought Rafael Van Der Vaart was poor, but we didn't allow him the time and space in front of the defence to get on the ball, and made sure that we were more aware of his ability to ghost in on the rebound as he did when he scored at White Hart Lane. Contrast his performance with Odemwingie at West Brom the previous week which was all about his movement and their willingness to pass the ball down the slip side while he was on the shoulder. His movement was excellent, but also once that pass was made and as he took possession of the ball, the supporting runs were all very well drilled and meant they could fire off quick give and go's in dangerous areas that are hard to deal with and put you on the back foot. Spurs never found Defoe at all really and therefore never had any proper cohesion in their build up play.

Why are we winning at home but not away?

I think it's a combination of reasons, but mainly facing the right teams at the right times. All of the sides we've beaten recently at home are the kind of teams that like to exhort pressure on you and hold the majority of the ball.

We can be our own worst enemy when we've got time on the ball, or are expected to go out and attack teams, it's where we're not really ready yet as a Premiership outfit. We make too many unforced errors in these situations, but it is easier to hold your shape, keep your discipline and hit teams on the counter attack. That suits our players far more at this time and we've been able to find results.

In terms of timing, we've played some of the bigger sides at just the right time. Liverpool were in poor form and dramatically collapsed, giving us an almighty shot of confidence at the same time. It was the boost we needed, as was the decision for Mark Hughes to remove Joey Barton, which was the making of him and the turning point in our season where everybody knew they had to turn up and perform regardless.

Arsenal came about at that strange point where a side goes on a winning run and look invincible, only to lose suddenly, but they weren't actually playing fabulously in those games either and they are so inept and dozy at times, that you always have a chance against them.

Swansea just hit a rocky patch of form too, but we've done well against them over the last couple of years and I had no fears, because a lot of our players had played them before and knew about them. But they are again another side who like to keep the ball, but fail to penetrate properly as they don't quite have the quality in the final third and are really nothing to be scared of, so playing them straight after Arsenal at home was ideal for us.

And then there was Spurs, who looked like they were out of gas and also in poor form just at the right time.

I think it's right for Hughes to say the run in and matches against higher profile sides help focus the mind more. It's certainly helped us, but we have to also give credit to the fans who have really got behind the team in recent weeks and played their part at Loftus Road . Like I said, I think Hughes won the respect of the crowd when he removed and then dropped Barton, and we've turned up to do what we need to do from the stands too.

As for the away matches, the emotion of the Liverpool game took it out of us against Sunderland . It was just too much too soon, and you can get that up and down reaction when it's so extreme, so I wasn't surprised and half expected that to be the case.

The Manchester United game was all about the Shaun Derry sending off, but also it helped us save our legs for Swansea as the tempo went to walking pace and Hughes made the right substitutions at the right time as well.

We were clumsy against West Brom, but they played well and with a lot of width which didn't suit our three man midfield, and when you hit this stage of this season where we played three times in six days, it's a tough ask of the players to perform at their maximum when you don't have the strength in depth and luxury to rotate.

How should we approach Chelsea?

I think we should go there and try to win the match rather than play for a draw. There's nothing to be scared of any we should pay no attention to our away form.

There's no better time to play them, regardless of whether they win or lose against Barcelona in the week. They've got to protect a lead and will spend a lot of emotional energy whether they win or lose, and face Newcastle United shortly after us, so they're going to be really stretched.

We might be one game too soon (it might be Newcastle where they are really spent), but with Branislav Ivanovic out, and possibly David Luiz and Gary Cahill too, they're light on numbers in defence. Whichever centre back pairing starts I'd like to see Bobby Zamora drop deep and stay tight on their defensive midfielder, whether that be Michael Essien or John Obi Mikel. Allow Terry and partner to pass the ball and have it as much as possible because when I saw him and Cahill attempting this in the England v Wales game they were so bad it was laughable.

I think Taarabt's absence is also a blessing because Chelsea are the sort of side that are very mechanical and efficient, so it does need a like for like in terms of how you shape up and react to changeover in possession of the ball.

I would play Djibril Cissé in his place, and either put him on the left side, or play two up front, with Jamie Mackie or Cissé alternating and joining him occasionally from either side. It's possible you would consider Shaun Wright-Phillips for this one, only because he knows the mentality of Stamford Bridge well, and that can be useful, but given his form is still a risk. Cissé offers more physical power and threatening pace and we need that because Chelsea are a very physically strong side.

I would want us to start slowly for five or ten minutes, make sure we get decent touches of the ball and find our rhythm and then when we've got our touch and range, really take it to them as much as possible. It's in this phase that you also work out what the opposition has in the tank and it will be pretty obvious straight away.

I think this game is won in the centre this time as well, rather than looking to the wides. A lot of their shortcomings come from narrow through balls in central positions, just inside the wide positions, and this is where we should lurk.

They are the kind of side that let you have the ball in the deep central area of the pitch, so tidy passing is important in there and would probably lead me to keeping Shaun Derry on the pitch, he'd probably also be sharper at tracking Frank Lampard's runs from midfield too. Samba Diakité has the energy to deal with Meireles and John Obi Mikel and it's probably Juan Mata who will be the biggest danger of all.

Similarly there will be a lot of dead moments, where they have a habit of just going through the motions with their play and we need to be on top of that, and not allow them to shift up and down gears as they please. It's about keeping them on their toes, and making sure if that happens that we are controlling our fair share of those situations.

What we need is the same kind of performance we dished out away to Aston Villa in the first half that put us two goals up and then we need to shift the mentality as successfully as we did against Spurs.

One area we can also look at, in terms of them having possession of the ball, is both Gary Cahill and John Terry do like to venture forward. Cahill tends to come out of his position, though usually in safe zones and gets on the ball, but this gives Cissé a chance to get in behind him if we can hit them on the counter.

Similarly I reckon John Terry is going to be really fired up for this and actually desperate to score. Sometimes you see him pop up on the left side and even breakaway down the channel, which can be to our advantage if we can pop Mackie in, or get Bobby Zamora to hold and "set it" (the LFW crew will laugh at that one) for a through ball to be played into Cissé or even Diakité breaking from midfield.

I certainly think it's a game where we can get something.

Tweet @loftforwords, @neildejyothin

Pictures – Action Images

Photo: Action Images

jo_qpr63 added 21:59 - Apr 25 QPR. Sign Neil up.
0

TacticalR added 23:38 - Apr 25 Neil thanks for your analysis. This is a great idea. It might sound a bit clichéd, but I feel one factor that has been very important in a lot of our recent matches has been the first goal (with some exceptions such as the Liverpool game). Since the Liverpool game, in all the matches we have won, we have scored first. I notice this affects other teams too. For example, in the Swansea match I felt Barton's first goal had quite a big impact on the Swansea team, who were torn between their default passing style and chasing the game. We have also learned to soak up pressure, as we showed against Arsenal and Tottenham. We seem to play better against some of the better ball-playing sides (Arsenal, Swansea, Manchester City). The teams we find difficult to handle are not so much the physical teams as the pacy sides like Norwich (or Tottenham when they were playing well). One other point...against United (Scholes) and West Brom (Dorrans) we got caught out by long-range shots from midfield. Are we a bit vulnerable here? Is someone not do their job tracking from midfield, or is conceding these kind of goals just something to be expected every now and then?

0

WanderR added 23:53 - Apr 25 Have you been offered the England job yet?
0

parker64 added 06:44 - Apr 26 I'd love to see us take the game to Chelsea and try and win it. I suspect it will be business as usual though.
0

Neil_SI added 07:57 - Apr 26 TacticalR - Cheers. The first goal is always important of course, well, the first and then second and third are generally significant in terms of their pyschological impact. We tend to have struggled if we conceded the first goal, but similarly in earlier parts of the season, we didn't have the belief we could hang on and take something when we did (Norwich and Wolves as examples). Whenever you defend as deeply as we've done, you're always prone to facing long shots. Graham Dorrans' goal for West Brom was the result of poor defending overall. We allowed ourselves to be sucked over to one side, didn't react and close the ball down quick enough and then as it shifted across to Dorrans there was never really a player in the correct place able to close down quickly and efficiently. That was obvious even from a wide position and I remember being annoyed we didn't see what was about to materialise as it was pretty obvious, which is another reason why I said we were a bit clumsy in that match. The Paul Scholes one, we were down to ten-men and was inevitable really. Once they realised they should shoot from long range, and with us so hemmed in, they were always going to get some opportunities. Adel made a mistake, which is fair enough, but in a normal circumstance with eleven players on the pitch you wouldn't expect to give someone like Paul Scholes all that time to tee up his shot. Michael Carrick's that hit the post was just a great strike, so you can only say fair play in that circumstance. We needed to man-mark Paul Scholes, but didn't do it at any point really. The way they pop the ball around until he's on it and in the correct position is impressive, so for me, it was about letting Michael Carrick out of the two of them to be on the ball more, but sadly we never got the chance to do that having gone down to ten men so early. But they way their full backs engage so high up the pitch at all times is always going to force the opposition to retreat and allow them that little bit more time and space just outside the box.

0

QPRski added 08:07 - Apr 26 Thanks for a very interesting analysis and insight. I think this feature is a great idea. The Chelsea match will be difficult as they will be fired up as will the home crowd. But there could be a Real hangover, injuries, as well as the Terry effect. I hope that MH and the players will be able to leverage it to their advantage!
0

pomanjou added 09:27 - Apr 26 Nice one Neil. Bit long winded for me (I'm awarding you an 'Ingham') and by the end I was on my knees! One point you did make that particularly caught my eye was " It's possible you would consider Shaun Wright-Phillips for this one, only because he knows the mentality of Stamford Bridge well, and that can be useful". Given the mass of changes down the road and the time lag since Shaun was there I wouldnt think he has any clue as to 'the mentality'. Am I missing something?

0

Northernr added 09:37 - Apr 26 Team there hasn't changed that much since SWP time there Pom - Cech, Ivanovic, Terry, Cole, Lampard, Drogba, Essien, Mikel etc all playing regularly from his time.
0

Neil_SI added 09:52 - Apr 26 Heh thanks Pom, I can't help myself sometimes and even in long winded posts, I often still struggle to get off my chest what I'm actually trying to say. What I mean by my SWP comment is that is that he understands the mentality of Stamford Bridge (as well as some of the players), which means the atmosphere and how the fans influence proceedings. Sometimes you choose players to help you when others may lack the experience to deal with what they're about to face. It's a bit like how Roberto Di Matteo approached the away game against Benfica, where he selected players who understood the mentality and atmosphere out there, so he chose Paulo Ferreira, David Luiz, Ramires, Raul Meireles, Juan Mata and Fernando Torres over other first-team players and they came away with a terrific 1-0 win.

0

pomanjou added 11:16 - Apr 26 I take yours and Northern's points but I always thought that 'mentality' was something managers imbue into their teams ie, siege or attacking or defensive or old Arsenal hit em on the break, etc etc. Anyway any possible plus from that would be outweighed be his clear lack of form unless of course he's doing a longer Joey Barton type Hughes inspired revival.
0

Ribenaboy added 12:59 - Apr 26 Well Cahill is definitely crocked, I would really fancy Zamora & Cisse against Terry (and via a process of elimination as to who's left) & Ferreira in the centre. Also now that Chelsea have 2 cup finals to go at I would expect the team to look very much like that which faced Arsenal last week (Turnbull, Bosingwa, Bertrand, Sturridge, Romeu & Torres). Should be a better atmosphere at the game than if they'd lost to Barca though. Most importantly, lets all sing our hearts out.

0

TacticalR added 15:47 - Apr 26 Neil, you make a very good point here: "We allowed ourselves to be sucked over to one side, didn't react and close the ball down quick enough and then as it shifted across to Dorrans there was never really a player in the correct place able to close down quickly and efficiently." I was watching the WBA game on the telly, and there was one point in the match where I noticed that three or four of our players got drawn to the ball on one side of the pitch near the half-way line. I remember from days gone past this was an old failing of the Rs. It's the worst of all possible worlds because it means that three or four players are trying to do the same job and therefore those three or four players are not doing their own job. This was one of Tottenham's great strengths at White Hart Lane - their players moved forward collectively while keeping a distance from each other. Fortunately for us that had all dissipated by the time they arrived at Loftus Road. On a positive note this is the reason Taarabt can be such disruptive force on other teams, because he can draw three or four opposition players towards the ball thereby creating a lot of space elsewhere.

0

BrianMcCarthy added 19:47 - Apr 26 Superb idea, lads, and who better to talk tactics than Neil! Well written, Neil. Really enjoyed that.
0

YorkRanger added 20:55 - Apr 26 Good article Neil - I think this feature has legs Clive. Let's hope its not analysing tactics on a wet, windy night at Oakwell next November.
0

Pablo_Hoopsta added 01:29 - Apr 27 Really good read, you cover the technical aspects very well, so well I can place them to the games! Eagerly looking forward to the next edition.
0

Blogs 31 bloggers

Queens Park Rangers Polls