Questions after Spurs Women’s defeat at Manchester United

14th October 2024

By Rachel Cohen.

In their away game at Manchester United Spurs played better football than they have this season but still left on the wrong end of a 3-0 defeat. This blog poses some questions about the team.

Let’s start by saying that in Sunday’s away game at Leigh Valley Spurs did a lot right. The press worked. The team won turnovers – in the final third and across the pitch. The midfield passing patterns were impressive, whether playing out of defence or in more attacking positions. Related, we saw ball progression, through the centre of the pitch as well as finding spaces to make crosses from wide areas. And after a game vs Liverpool when Tottenham were repeatedly second-best in challenges, this time out, Spurs won most of the duels.

In other words, as compared to the previous two WSL games (and the League Cup game), there was progress in the style of play. And this meant that for large periods of the game Spurs were dominant and United on the back-foot. Yet at the end of the game Spurs emerged on the end of a painful (3-0) loss, all the more painful since it was partly inflicted by ex-player Celin Bizet. Below are a few questions from what was therefore a slightly frustrating game. 

Can we choose a #9, please? 

Last week I wrote a long piece for The Cutback about Spurs strikers. I am not going to reiterate that here except to say that in this game Robert Vilahamn started all three of our most likely #9s (Bethany England, Martha Thomas and Jess Naz) and none scored. All three did good work off the ball, all created chances and Thomas and England got four shots apiece (Naz one). But most were off target or tame efforts straight at the keeper. When she came on as a late substitute, Spurs young striker, Lenna Gunning-Williams similarly misfired, with a shot well wide of goal. 

Last year Robert Vilahamn tried playing England, Thomas and Naz together and, despite occasional moments where it seemed to work, it was typically less than the sum of its parts. A whole 90 minutes of England and Thomas here reinforced the point that Spurs need a designated striker – a player who others look to; who gets to be selfish because they know that they are the goal threat. At the moment too often Spurs’ strikers end up a distance from goal when a cross comes in or seem hesitant to actually shoot – as if they are aware that there are other strikers on the pitch who might do better and to whom they could – or should – pass. In the event it was probably Drew Spence who seemed likeliest to score – and whose strikes at least bothered Tullis-Joyce. 

At present, across the last 180 minutes of football played, and notwithstanding Villahamn’s ‘attacking’ brand, no Spurs player has put the ball in the back of the net – Clare Hunt was officially given a goal against Liverpool but that came courtesy of a massive deflection off Liverpool defender, Bonner. Against Liverpool the problem could be put down to chance creation, but against United Spurs had eighteen shots (to United’s twelve) and the bigger issue was finishing. Seeing Terland twice ruthlessly drive the ball into the goal was a painful reminder that an on-form striker makes all the difference. Without similar ruthlessness in front of goal – and the ability to score at least a couple each game – sloppiness at the other end of the pitch will come back to bite Spurs. 

The final problem with selecting all three of Thomas, England and Naz is that Vilahamn has to leave out other players and this can create imbalances. Last week, against Liverpool, Vilahamn sacrificed midfielders, with Thomas being used as a #10. This week we had a full midfield complement – of Summanen, Ahtinen and Spence – and were relatively dominant in the middle of the pitch. Instead, however, we sacrificed wingers with the three strikers as a front three. Moreover, they seemed to be given some freedom to switch positions across the front line. While this is good in principle and Vilahamn has repeatedly talked about allowing players freedom within a structure, in this instance it perhaps exacerbated issues of priority and made it harder to have consistent defensive cover down the wing, a place where we were hurt. 

Can we improve offensive set pieces?

One part of improving conversion rates has to be improving the product of attacking set-pieces. In this game Spurs at times felt like Arsenal in disguise – at least in terms of lack of cut through from attacking set pieces and the team’s dominance of these opportunities – Spurs had ten corners (to United’s three), eight free-kicks (to United’s four) and 25 throw-ins (to United’s 14). Related, there was a massive disparity in terms of crosses: Spurs had 27, United 10. But two of United’s crosses resulted in goals. Spurs crosses and set pieces culminated in balls floating over or into the box. Some went far post, some near, most seemed to have a decent flight but they just did not connect or the player with whom they connected was not able to turn them goalbound with sufficient power and accuracy.

In the first weeks of this season Spurs scored a couple of goals from set pieces and it looked like this was an area in which the team was becoming more dangerous. But there is clearly work to be done – both on meeting crosses and on powering the ball into the net from within a congested box. 

Is defending crosses an issue? 

The first two goals (in the 44th and 45+4th Minute) were almost carbon copies of one another: Celin Bizet, playing as a fullback, found herself in acres of open space to send in a cross. Both times her cross found Terland. The first time it was her foot, the second her head. These goals exposed two things. 1) covering the wide areas and 2) picking up players in the box. 

In the run-up to both goals Charli Grant, playing at left-back was in a central area and unable to get out wide to Bizet. In the first case this seems to be an error – Bizet’s run was visible and both centre-backs were in the central space. The second time the fault was not specifically Grant’s as she had come in to stop Clinton shooting (doubling up with Hunt), because Molly Bartrip had been upfield and was tracking back. In both cases, however, Grant’s position left a huge amount of space, and Bizet had all the time in the world to pick out a cross. And in neither case was Grant supported by a winger (Naz or England/Thomas).

In terms of picking up players in the box, for the first goal Terland positioned herself with Bartrip goalside but was able to extend her raised leg around Bartrip to meet the ball. For the second Terland who headed the ball, was the goalside of Ashleigh Neville with Galton behind Neville. Meanwhile Bartrip moved forward, to double-team Clinton with Hunt, thereby allowing space in front of Terland. One of the issues for both goals was that United had a lot of goal-threats in the box and in both cases Terland deserves credit for perfectly hit shots, but the concern for Spurs is that she was not adequately picked up either time. 

Overall Spurs’ defending of crosses, especially set pieces seems to have improved this year. So this may just be an aberration. It was also Grant’s first start and Neville had a less good game than we have come to expect of her. But to see the same problems recur twice in five minutes means this is something that needs to be addressed. Indeed after the half-time reset it looked like attacking players had specifically been instructed to more often drop deep and support Grant.

Are we suddenly in an injury crisis? 

In the week before the start of the season everyone seemed fit. Then as the season started we found out that midfielder Wang Shuang had a knock, as did fullback Ella Morris, and centre-back Amy James-Turner had concussion. None of these issues sounded long-term but a month later, all three are yet to return. On Sunday, just before the game we found out that three starters were also out – Hayley Raso, Amanda Nilden and Maite Oroz. In Oroz’s case it sounds quite serious – a soft tissue injury which Vilaham described as a “big injury so she will be unavailable for a few weeks”. On top of that and perhaps as worrying (given the lack of substitutes in her position) Eveliina Summanen has clearly been carrying an injury to her back or shoulders, something that her clash and fall in the United game will not have helped. 

In Raso’s absence we got the Thomas/England/Naz frontline – although given that Vinberg and Csiki were both available that was also Vilahamn’s choice; Nilden’s absence (alongside Morris) meant that there were no options: Grant was the only available fullback other than Neville. In her first start Grant showed both why her pace can be exciting going forward but also why she has not (at least not yet) got the defensive composure or positional sense of Nilden. Oroz’s absence, despite her good start to the season, was perhaps less impactful – with Ahtinen and Summanen showing the understanding that worked so well early last season. But without Oroz when Summanen was withdrawn there was not another available midfielder to bring on (Bartrip was tried out in defensive midfield in pre-season but we’re yet to see it in a competitive game). Thus we saw Vinberg coming in and Thomas (sometimes England) moving to attacking midfield. 

Vilahamn has anyway seemed disinclined to make heavy use of substitutes (making just three on Sunday and two the week before) but the injury ravaged squad is not helping with that and means both constrained choices and also fewer game-changing players on the bench.

What has Matilda Vinberg done? 

There has to be a reason the promising Swede has dropped so far down the pecking order that she has racked up about 40 minutes across the four WSL games so far. In this game, despite absences through injury to other wingers, it was only with Eveliina Summanen’s withdrawal (seemingly for an ongoing injury) that Vinberg got on the pitch. This is a surprise as at the end of last season she seemed to be building to a breakthrough, getting increasing minutes and starts (particularly effectively in last season’s away game at United). It is true that she did not especially shine against Charlton in the League Cup (her only start this season) but she has looked bright in substitute appearances. And on Sunday, once Vinberg was on the pitch the team seemed to get a new burst of creativity, able to better progress the ball down the left. She is a left-footed player and effective at crossing the ball. Hopefully, in upcoming games, especially if Raso remains out (or has limited minutes) Vinberg gets more time to show what she brings. 

Must conceding penalties be the price of ‘Bobbyball’?

Last year we conceded a league-leading three penalties (with Everton and Bristol City). Already this year we have conceded two (league-leading with Aston Villa). Both of this year’s have been conceded by Ashleigh Neville and while both were at least a little ‘soft’ it is worth asking whether there is perhaps something about how we need to defend that may make these more likely. Neville excels at rushing back to cover and is one of the best in the league at tackling or putting in a block without fouling, but if you are regularly throwing your body in front of the ball to prevent transition attacks it’s just more likely that things go wrong. Last year Summanen was repeatedly the player in the wrong place – putting in a rash tackle, handballing. So it is not specifically about Neville but about whether there is more we can do to reduce our exposure.