Eze Hat Trick Redefines Derby Dynamics: A Breakdown of How Arsenal Outstructured Spurs
November 24, 2025
Eze hat trick : North London Derbies often lean on emotion, but this one leaned heavily on layout, spacing and coordinated movements. Arsenal had clarity from the opening phase, using their midfield shape to dictate how Spurs could move, pass and defend. Tottenham’s recent inconsistency meant the derby would challenge their structure more than their spirit.
Instead of chaos, the match played out like an organised pattern — one where Arsenal repeatedly found advantages. The Eze hat trick became the most visible outcome, but the underlying mechanisms explained why Arsenal felt in control across every major phase of the match.
Eze’s Three Goals Through a Structural Lens: What Each Finish Tells Us – Eze hat trick
Eberechi Eze’s hat-trick didn’t come from isolated moments; it came from Arsenal generating the same types of spaces again and again. His first finish came after a midfield rotation freed him between the lines. His second came from a wide switch that exposed Tottenham’s delayed defensive shift. And his third arrived because Spurs pushed higher without synchronising their back line.
Each moment reflected Arsenal’s design: manipulate shape, create pockets, release runners.
Eze Hat Trick – Structural Map
| Goal | Description | Example of Impact |
|---|---|---|
| First | Beats two defenders with close control, low finish | Spurs’ early press broken in one move |
| Second | Curled strike inside the far post | Stadium momentum swings entirely to Arsenal |
| Third | Arrives unmarked and slots home | Spurs’ defensive adjustments collapse instantly |
Seen together, the goals illustrate not just execution but repeatable triggers.
How Arsenal’s Shape Functioned: Rotations, Width and Layered Pressing – Eze hat trick
Arsenal approached the derby with a system built around clarity rather than unpredictability. Their midfield three positioned themselves in staggered layers, creating up to four diagonal passing lanes at any moment. This made Spurs’ man-marking attempts difficult to sustain.
Key structural principles included:
• Saka and Trossard holding extreme width to stretch the back five
• Rice stepping up at selective moments to press Spurs’ pivots
• Merino drifting between lines to prevent Tottenham from setting a settled block
The shape allowed Arsenal to maintain control with or without the ball. Even when Spurs seemed to escape pressure, Arsenal had another layer waiting to trap the next pass.
Why Spurs’ Structure Failed: Unbalanced Depth and Limited Progression Paths
Tottenham tried to protect their defensive third by keeping numbers behind the ball, but the approach worked against them. Their back five sat too deep, forcing midfielders into large defensive distances. Their transitions lacked runners, limiting Richarlison to isolated duels with Arsenal’s centre-backs.
The issues became clearer across three recurring patterns:
• Midfield lines dropped too far, disconnecting Maddison from buildup
• Wingbacks were pinned, unable to push forward or overlap
• Spurs relied on long balls rather than structured progression
Their first-half total of 0.07 expected goals, alongside zero touches in Arsenal’s box, summed up the lack of structure in their attacking phases. Even Richarlison’s brilliant long-range lob exposed more about Arsenal’s single mistake than Spurs’ system working.
Supporting Elements: The Phases That Sustained Arsenal’s Grip on the Match
Arsenal’s control extended beyond Eze’s finishing. Trossard’s early goal forced Tottenham to adjust their defensive line, creating more space for midfield rotations. Zubimendi supported Rice by controlling second balls, allowing Arsenal to restart attacks quickly. Merino operated like a hinge, shifting between midfield and attack to maintain passing connections.
Defensively, Arsenal pressed in waves rather than continuous bursts. This allowed them to maintain energy while ensuring Spurs never fully escaped pressure. Raya’s misjudgment on Tottenham’s lone goal briefly interrupted rhythm, but Arsenal returned quickly to their structural discipline. Vicario, meanwhile, kept the score from widening by denying two close-range efforts from Eze and Saka.
These smaller phases explain the “why” behind Arsenal’s overall derby authority.
Conclusion: The Eze Hat Trick as a Clear Window Into Arsenal’s Derby Method
Arsenal’s 4–1 win becomes far easier to interpret when viewed through structure, shape and discipline rather than just scoreboard context. Their spacing, rotations and pressing timing allowed them to dictate where the match was played. Tottenham’s deeper shape and lack of progression made the gap more pronounced as the match evolved.
The Eze hat trick stands as the clearest example of how Arsenal’s system produced repeated advantages — and how Spurs were unable to disrupt them. As the season progresses, this match offers a guide to understanding Arsenal’s identity: organised, patient, and capable of turning structure into decisive moments.