Premier League Analysis · Tottenham Hotspur
Anfield Gave Tottenham Chances, Not an Attacking Order
Tottenham produced 17 attempts and still exited the Carabao Cup at Liverpool. Chance volume is progress, but Roberto De Zerbi must turn a gifted front line into an attacking order.
The volume arrived before the answer
Seventeen attempts are enough to reject the idea that Tottenham Hotspur had no attack at Anfield. A 3-1 defeat is enough to reject the idea that volume solved it. Roberto De Zerbi has evidence of an attack taking shape, but he still needs to decide which movement gives that attack its order.
The visitors started brightly, forced Giorgi Mamardashvili into important saves and finished the night with five more attempts than Liverpool. Conor Gallagher's 69th-minute header made the tie live again. Omar Marmoush then saw the goalkeeper divert a deflected effort that looked destined to make it 2-2. Instead, Dominik Szoboszlai ended the argument in stoppage time. The margins were real. So was the difference between creating a chance and owning it.
De Zerbi described the missing ingredient as a click. That is emotionally understandable and tactically incomplete. An attack does not click because enough talented names are placed near one another. It clicks when each player knows whose movement clears the lane, who attacks the first ball and who arrives for the second. Tottenham have collected the options. Anfield showed that they have not yet ordered them.
Eight changes made the experiment useful
De Zerbi changed eight players from the side that drew 0-0 with Everton. Liverpool changed 10. This was not a settled Premier League attack failing its final examination; it was a live audition conducted at cup speed. Mohammed Kudus made his first start since January, Martin Dubravka made his competitive Spurs debut and Tosin Adarabioyo made his first start. Rotation explains some of the looseness. It also turned the match into a useful comparison of roles.
Kudus, Marmoush, Mathys Tel, Lucas Bergvall and Gallagher gave Tottenham different routes into the final third. The official account recorded opportunities for Bergvall, Kudus and Marmoush, while De Zerbi listed six or seven clear chances. That range should excite him. It should also force a choice. If every forward is an option for every phase, the team can end up treating the penalty area like an open-plan office: plenty of people present, nobody quite sure who owns the meeting.
Gallagher's goal came from Mateus Fernandes' corner rather than the open-play volume Spurs want to make their identity. There is no shame in a set-piece rescue. There is a warning in needing it while the glamorous attack keeps producing evidence of possibility instead of goals.
The case for patience is strong
The strongest objection to a hard verdict is that Mamardashvili was excellent, Tottenham were heavily changed and several attackers are returning to fitness. A different goalkeeper performance could have turned the same collection of shots into a draw. De Zerbi is also building a new project rather than repairing a mature one. Judging the entire mechanism from a September cup tie would be theatre disguised as analysis.
Accept all of that. Chance creation is a better foundation than sterile possession, and 17 attempts at Anfield are not nothing. Kudus returning to the starting XI matters. James Maddison getting minutes matters. Marmoush forcing a late save matters. Three Liverpool goals do not require Tottenham to panic.
But patience must protect a developing idea, not postpone the need to choose one. Spurs entered the tie without a Premier League goal through four matches. That wider sample makes the finishing problem more than a single hot goalkeeper. The question is no longer whether the squad contains enough attackers. It is whether De Zerbi can give them jobs precise enough to turn pressure into the first goal rather than another explanation after the last whistle.
Choose the sequence, not just the names
The next selection should begin with sequence. Decide who pins the centre-backs, who receives between the lines and who attacks the space created by the first movement. Then choose the players. Tottenham's depth makes the reverse order tempting: select the most dazzling four and assume their instincts will negotiate the traffic. That is how an expensive attack becomes a committee.
De Zerbi does not need one permanent front line in September. He does need a first-choice relationship that the alternatives can challenge. Kudus can change direction with the ball. Marmoush can threaten the goal. Maddison can supply the pass others do not see. Those are attributes, not yet a shared plan. The plan becomes visible when one action reliably produces the next.
Liverpool supplied the contrast. Alexis Mac Allister, Cody Gakpo and Szoboszlai scored very different goals, yet each strike arrived from a player accepting the moment rather than waiting for the attack to reorganise around him. Tottenham generated more volume. Liverpool gave its threat an address.
Aston Villa should see an order
Aston Villa provide the next test. One brilliant finish might change the mood without answering the question. The opening 20 minutes should reveal an attacking hierarchy before frustration starts moving players into the same spaces.
Watch the first central run when a wide player receives. Watch who occupies the cutback zone and whether the next midfielder arrives without crowding it. Watch the response after the first good chance is saved. If the same movements return, Spurs will have something stronger than hope and kinder than panic.
Seventeen attempts showed that De Zerbi is not trying to manufacture an attack from empty shelves. They also removed the easiest excuse. Against Villa, Tottenham need the same first movement to appear often enough that the second and third movements stop looking improvised. That is the difference between having many ways to threaten and knowing which way comes first.











































