-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Tactics TFC's Tactical Autopsy Thread
- Thread starter bus-conductor
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Ps: not you
Fattynomates
Nice to see that we're top (bottom is "top") of the *** screams *** "PLAY! PLAY! PLAY!" table.
Underlines the importance of Romero to our build up but also the importance of recruiting a cb that can do likewise, with maybe better box defending too?
View: https://x.com/datamb_/status/1877141650532872474?s=46&t=IomICbZIqZC4FsH907qgfw
View: https://x.com/datamb_/status/1877141650532872474?s=46&t=IomICbZIqZC4FsH907qgfw
Last edited:
So Harwood-Bellis then? Clearly Southampton are going down.
Interesting that Dragusin is right next to Virgil on that chart.
We're bang in the middle in shots conceded per game. Nottingham don't have fewer shots but they force them to take the shots in lower xG positions. City which has been such an underperformer has the highest and Man U is also up there with us.
For Spurs I think it stands out that Son and Madders are the most creative. I've mentioned this before and I think their lack of mutual involvement in the game is seriously damaging our chances to be a force in the attack. One creative player is often not enough. It takes a similar mind to understand what the other is going to create, and Son and Madders are really similar.
Happened against Newcastle when they came on. We saw it against City (4-0) and against Southampton (5-0 in 45 min).
Kulu is also creative, but as the graph shows, not so efficient. He fell in love with himself last few weeks and is now taking extremely long on the ball. He's also our slowest player so should be the one driving it forward. He's good for locking up defences but he shouldn't be the one dictating.
Maddison never really got his place back after his injury against Chelsea. He doesn't even start nowadays. It's clear what we're missing.
This is what's so frustrating with Ange. He just doesn't get it.
Leave it out bus Romero would have been on the edge of the box instead of on the goal line 1-1.
I get sick of this narrative of his distribution he is a CB and his job is to protect the goal which he hadn't done this season
Agree with all that. I can only assume Ange is trying to get an attitude shift out of Maddison by making him feel he has to earn his spot in the starting line-up.
...*ssssssssssiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh*...how have they controlled for the other absences/injuries? If they haven't then this is merely correlation and not as you are presenting it...but i can stay out of it if yall would like to get on with the Ange is our savior circle jerk...Apart from showing that our line has got deeper since we lost our Cb’s it also shows the difference losing our first choice cb’s has made:
So, the 3 relegation teams and a team that just fired its coach prop us up from the bottom of xG-conceded?
See the very next post for causation to explain the correlation. Forster + Dragusin + Gray + Bissouma's individual stats show 12 more turnovers per 90 when compared to Vicario + Romero + van de Ven + Bentancur. That reduced ball security / press resistance of those 4 individuals creates more opportunities for our opponents, which is supported by the xG conceded correlation posted by b.c.
And I think the eye test confirms it. We've looked far less solid playing out from the back without Vicario, Romero and van de Ven. To the point of even starting to abandon that tactic.
Bottom graph:Not got a clue sorry
- Bottom left, Leicester, Southampton and Wolves shit at both attacking and defending set pieces, conceding lots of chances (xG) but not creating many.
- Top right, Woolwich, Forest, Liverpool and Bournemouth good at both attacking and defending
- Bottom right, Spurs good at attacking set pieces but also conceding lots of chances from defensive set pieces.
- Left: Everton kind of opposite to Spurs, better at defending set pieces that creating chances
- Liverpool creating the most chances from open play and also ok from set pieces
- Woolwich creating the most chances from set pieces and bang average from open play
- Forest, Villa and Brighton also heavily dependent on set pieces
- Spurs good from both set pieces and open play
I've vacillated about a response to this...I have very little interest in going back and forth about Ange (with intransigent AngeIN-ers...perhaps not you but this may be evidence) or about statistical analysis (with those without a firm grasp of statistical analysis...perhaps not you but this may be evidence). I just like shitting on the descriptive statistical circle jerk in here...you should ignore me,
bus-conductor
does...
Some potential confounding matters: relative level of opposition, defensive aggressivity* of opponent, %/number of increased turnovers that actually directly led to a chance (and defining time/#of passes parameters), etc etc etc etc...I could go on for an hour on these. And they would have to be known and controlled for in order to establish something resembling causation.
That's all convenient but nothing in this data confirms anything other than a pre-established bias and a desire for matters to fit conveniently into a mitigation narrative...as others would have and will further mention, we were also doing all the losing while those players were here...that's a hell of a confounding factor.
Good luck with any further analysis.
bus-conductor
does...Yeah, this is a mess of an post-hoc analysis...and a craning of data into a convenient narrative...but it is most assuredly NOT a determination of a causality...all still correlation my friend.
Some potential confounding matters: relative level of opposition, defensive aggressivity* of opponent, %/number of increased turnovers that actually directly led to a chance (and defining time/#of passes parameters), etc etc etc etc...I could go on for an hour on these. And they would have to be known and controlled for in order to establish something resembling causation.
Let me get this straight, what you see is what you already thought? Hell yeah, now we're talking!!!!
That's all convenient but nothing in this data confirms anything other than a pre-established bias and a desire for matters to fit conveniently into a mitigation narrative...as others would have and will further mention, we were also doing all the losing while those players were here...that's a hell of a confounding factor.
Good luck with any further analysis.