A 1-1 draw with Leeds felt like a defeat left Tottenham Hotspur two points above the drop with two games left. After studying what Roberto De Zerbi did and didn’t do on Monday night, we have now identified exactly where the manager succeeded, where he fell short, and why the next ten days could define the rest of his Spurs career.
The mood around the ground after the final whistle told the whole story. West Ham had already lost to Arsenal on Sunday, handing Spurs the chance to go four points clear with two to play: a gap that would have made survival feel like a formality.
Instead, Mathys Tel went from sumptuous to reckless inside 20 minutes, the penalty was given, and the cushion we could have built is still only two points. We need results from Chelsea and Everton now, and there is no room for the kind of errors we saw last night.
There is plenty to debate about how De Zerbi set up, managed the game, and used his bench. Some of his calls were correct; some were costly. Here is where we think he got it right, and where he did not.
Nobody is going to pretend the logic was invisible. Back-to-back wins against Wolves and Villa with the same group built momentum, and De Zerbi has been clear about how fragile confidence is in a squad this psychologically beaten-up. You understand the instinct to leave well alone.
But Randal Kolo Muani was not well alone. He was a passenger against Leeds, and in a match this high-stakes, against a side with nothing to lose, carrying a passenger in the number ten slot was a choice that cost us. He lost possession 23 times, won only two of five attempted dribbles, and finished the night with a FotMob rating of 5.8: the lowest of any Spurs outfield starter.
There was one decent moment, squaring the ball to Richarlison in the first half when a goal looked certain, but Richarlison skied it; that is not exactly a ringing endorsement for Kolo Muani’s night.
MORE SPURS STORIES
The harder question is whether De Zerbi ever seriously considered an alternative. Leeds arrived already safe, with 43 points on the board, which meant Daniel Farke’s side would press from the first whistle with absolutely nothing to lose: exactly the kind of team that exposes a number ten who cannot hold the ball, win duels, or make intelligent runs in tight spaces. Kolo Muani managed one, maybe two, of those things on the night.
The fact that his loan expires this summer and relegation carries zero personal consequence for him does not make things easier to stomach, either; his body language in the second half told its own story.
We believe De Zerbi should have gone with a different shape: a tighter midfield three, Richarlison leading the line alone, with Lucas Bergvall getting his chance in a more creative role. “Unchanged” is a reasonable instinct; “unchanged when one of your starters is actively hurting you” is something else.
This is the one that still stings. Dominic Calvert-Lewin equalised in the 74th minute and the game immediately opened up; Leeds had done their job and were content to sit on a point, Spurs needed a breakthrough. At that moment, the obvious question was simple: why is James Maddison still on the bench?
De Zerbi admitted post-match that Maddison played more minutes than he had told him he would the day before; which is either a sign of good instinct or confirmation that the substitution had simply come too late to matter.
Maddison came on in the 85th minute, replacing Tel, and immediately started winning fouls, driving at defenders, and generating the kind of energy that should have been on the pitch from the 70th minute at the latest. His penalty appeal in stoppage time, waved away by referee Jarred Gillett, was as strong a claim as we saw all night.
Ten extra minutes of Maddison, against a tired Leeds side with nothing to play for defensively, could have changed everything. Tottenham should have won that game.
Yes, the timing was late. But let us give credit where it is due: the decision to use him at all, after 368 days away from competitive football following a devastating ACL rupture sustained in pre-season against Newcastle, was the right one.
De Zerbi has been careful with Maddison throughout his recovery, and the fact that he has been an unused substitute for three consecutive matches suggests the manager has been genuinely cautious rather than performatively cautious. He called him “a different player as a quality, as a guy” and said he hopes Maddison will be “crucial” for the final two games.
Given what is at stake, easing him back from the bench rather than throwing him straight into the fire from the start was responsible management; throwing a player back into high-stakes Premier League football ten minutes into a match after nearly a year out would have been asking for another injury.
Tottenham just needed him five minutes earlier. That is the only real complaint.
Tel scored one of the goals of this relegation run: a curling right-footed finish into the top corner that raised the roof. Then, less than 20 minutes later, he put his boot into Ethan Ampadu’s face attempting an overhead kick clearance, VAR took all of 90 seconds to confirm the penalty, and Calvert-Lewin did the rest.
The loyalty De Zerbi showed Tel after that moment is understandable: the lad has been one of the few genuine bright spots in a grim season. De Zerbi himself said he would “kiss him and hug him”, and nobody is seriously arguing Tel is a bad player.
But there is a genuine tactical case for taking him off the moment the penalty was conceded. He had been rattled: you could see it in his body language.
A young forward who has just gifted the opposition an equaliser from a moment of pure madness does not need more time on the pitch in that psychological state; he needs to be protected from himself.
The composure we needed in the final 20 minutes was not something Tel was in a position to give us at that point. De Zerbi left him on until the 85th minute regardless. That call did not work out.
There is a version of this argument that sounds like a criticism: De Zerbi played chaotic football, committed bodies forward, created loose-ball situations, and essentially abandoned the structured possession style he built his reputation on. But in the context of a relegation fight, with a squad that has been psychologically scarred for months, that was exactly the right approach.
De Zerbi said early in his time at Tottenham that this squad did not need a coach so much as a “big brother” to restore belief. Eight points from his first five games is evidence that the approach is working.
The problem against Leeds was not the system; it was the execution within it. Spurs have not won a home league game in 2026, and no team has collected fewer home points this season: that is a deep-rooted issue that goes well beyond one night’s tactics.
The chaos football is correct for where this squad is mentally. The margin for execution errors within it, though, is zero from here.
What needs to change for Tottenham before Chelsea and Everton
Two games. Two points above the drop. Chelsea away on May 19, then Everton at home on May 24: the two fixtures that will decide whether Tottenham are a Premier League club next season. West Ham face Newcastle and Leeds in their final two: neither of those is a gimme, which means the fate is still in our hands.
What has to change is the decisiveness on the bench. If Maddison is fit enough to start against Chelsea, he should start. If not, he goes on at 60 minutes: not 85. The difference between a manager who trusts his instincts and one who reacts to events is exactly the margin we are operating in right now.
De Zerbi is getting more right than wrong. That much is true, and it matters. But this is not a moment that rewards almost getting it right. It remains to be seen whether the final two games give him the chance to prove it.
