Both are highly talented, but both still need to diversify in order to establish themselves in the top tier of coaches

There are various opposing tactics in football – attacking versus defensive, ball retention versus counter-attack, fluid versus structured, wide versus narrow. Great tactical battles come between two sides evenly balanced in terms of ability, but completely opposing in strategic terms.

In recent years, Everton against Tottenham fits that brief. First, they are evenly-balanced – since Harry Redknapp joined Tottenham in late 2008, the eight league meetings between he and David Moyes have an aggregate score of 8-8, an average of 1-1 per match. They are always enjoyable, absorbing matches – clashes of genuine quality between two big clubs, without either the viciousness of a derby or the hype of a top-of-the-table clash.

Second, there is a clear element of opposing strategies – in particular, with the two coaches' attitude to individual matches, and on a wider level, their degree of interest in tactics. Redknapp does little coaching himself, and has a laissez-faire approach to players' roles. Ahead of Tottenham's away trip to Norwich in December, he told Rafael van der Vaart and Gareth Bale they could play where they wanted – he believes in maximising a player's ability to make their own decisions, letting attackers play with total freedom, and in playing a proactive game true to his own side's strengths.

Moyes resides at the opposite end of the spectrum. A much more studious coach, he personally works on his side's shape every day in training, varying it according to the challenge of the upcoming weekend. The main criticism of him, amid widespread praise for his decade in charge of the club, has been for being too defensive. But 'defensive' is a broad term that encompasses various aspects of play – the more specific allegation is that he is too reactive, too keen to change things according to the opposition's strengths, rather than imposing his own style of football upon the game. That submissive nature has been more obvious this season – Everton's average possession was 51% in 2009-10, 50% in 2010-11, but down at 46% this campaign.

Such a reactive approach means Everton are well-suited to facing bigger opponents, but picking up wins against weaker opposition is more of a problem, as they look uncomfortable when forced to make the running. From their last seven games, Everton have beaten Manchester City, Chelsea and Tottenham, yet drawn with Aston Villa, Blackburn, QPR and Wigan, all 1-1.

Redknapp, whose side have a poor record against the big clubs this season, tends to select upon fitness, form and confidence, rather than with the opposition in mind. Therefore, Tottenham often look tactically weak in the first half, before Redknapp changes things to prompt a second-half improvement.

Redknapp says things like, "you can argue about formations, tactics and systems forever, but to me football is fundamentally about players," as he told the Sun in 2010. "The numbers game is not the beautiful game, in my opinion." Whereas Moyes responds to criticism of his approach by saying: "If I had my way, I would love to sit down with people and ask to hear them explain the strengths of 4-4-2 compared to the 4-4-1-1 which we play. If you ask me, I'd argue all day long."

The difference was epitomised by the battle at the weekend, and in particular the contest between Bale and Seamus Coleman. These are, broadly speaking, two similar players – 22 and 23 respectively, full-backs converted into wingers because of their pace and attacking drive. If there's one area of tactics Redknapp does take an interest in, it's getting his attackers into space, and this has been particularly obvious with Bale.

"One of Gareth's main assets is the way he uses his fantastic pace to run at defenders," he says. "You need space in front of you to do that, though, and on the left wing, that space can become more easily closed down."

That desire for space has seen him fielded in the centre and the right in recent weeks. "People have been double-marking or even triple-marking me [out on the left]," Bale says. "I've had to mix my game up, and I'm improving all the time."

He started on the right here, partly to get away from that double-mark. Coleman did a great job against Bale at White Hart Lane last season, doubling up with Phil Neville, a few days after Bale's hat-trick against Inter that led to an explosion of hype.

Yet there was no escape. Demonstrating how reactive Moyes is, he had intended to use Coleman in that same role in conjunction with Neville, but upon seeing Bale line up on Tottenham's right on Saturday, Moyes told Coleman to trot over to an unfamiliar left-sided position to maintain the tracking. Redknapp was calling the shots and trying to lead his players into space, Moyes was responding to each move by telling his players to shut down the space. That's natural for a forward against a defender, but these were players in the same position.

Coleman replicated his job from last season with relative ease. Bale is less comfortable on the right, as a couple of poor crosses early on showed – one straight at a defender with his unfavoured right foot, the other a swipe with the outside of his left. In fact, it's probably easier for a wide midfielder to double up against an 'inverted' winger looking to come inside – the player can take up a reasonably central position and show him down the line. Neither Coleman nor Bale were comfortable crossing with their weaker foot, and with Royston Drenthe and Luka Modric also coming inside from the opposite flank, the game was tight and congested, which played into the hands of Moyes.

After a frustrated chorus of "Gareth Bale, he plays on the left" from the travelling Spurs fans, he eventually moved to his favoured flank. Coleman's marking had forced Bale from the left to the right last season. Now it forced him from the right to the left. Sure enough, Coleman followed him across the pitch again.

With Redknapp a near-certainty for the vacant England position, Moyes is the favourite for the Tottenham job. This game showcased how different the two are, and what a huge departure it would be from Tottenham's current style if they were to approach the Scot.

Of course, it's often a deliberate move to bring in a coach with a wildly different style to his predecessor, but this is after some level of failure, when there is a natural intention to break with the past. Redknapp would be benefitting from that with the FA, where the process of replacing a plucky Englishman with an intelligent foreigner, and vice-versa, is about to start its third cycle. But Redknapp's tenure has been a success, and Tottenham would have to decide how much they want to continue with his beliefs, and how much they want something different.

Tottenham could do with more structure against big teams, Everton need more invention against small teams, while England need both. Can we fuse the two managers? Both are highly talented, but both need to diversify to establish themselves in the top tier of coaches.

Di Matteo's attacking reward

Too many managers fail to adapt when the opposition goes down to 10 men early on in a game, assuming that the starting tactics and numerical advantage will combine for the breakthrough. If the opposition are suddenly weaker in one area of the pitch and are offering less of an attacking threat, though, it's often worthwhile changing your own shape accordingly, and introducing another attacker.

That's what new Chelsea boss Roberto Di Matteo did at the weekend. Stoke's Ricardo Fuller had been playing on the left wing, with Jon Walters deployed between midfield and Peter Crouch. But Fuller's red card meant Walters had to move to the left, and Chelsea now had both Mikel John Obi and Raul Meireles picking up no one in midfield.

Therefore, Di Matteo made a tactical change before half-time, removing the redundant Meireles within 10 minutes of Stoke going down to 10. Juan Mata gave an extra attacking threat, and though Chelsea only won 1-0, it was Mata's pass that set up the goal.

Scholes the envy of City

The January 're-signing' of Paul Scholes has given Manchester United extra passing quality in midfield, and Manchester City's acquisition of David Pizarro was set to do the same.

Therefore, it was strange not to see the Chilean in Sunday's 1-0 defeat to Swansea, a game in which City struggled in possession terms. Roberto Mancini also made a first-half substitution for tactical reasons, but he kept on throwing attackers when City were struggling for ideas from deep. Pizarro possesses great quality on the ball, and the ability to prompt a quick passing combination against an organised defence. Presumably his relative lack of playing time is due to his unfamiliarity with his team-mates and the league, which only serves to underline how valuable Scholes' re-emergence has been.