That’s a great chart, where did you get it?You can see where we're going wrong
-
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
I have yet to find any metric where Sunderland aren't portrayed as a typical newly promoted team destined to go straight back down.
18th in xG
16th in xGA
18th in xGD
19th in possession
19th in shots conceded
17th in shots conceded on target
Would put some money on them going on a horrenderous second half run to get relegated if I was a betting man. Weren't 10/11 Blackpool like this?
18th in xG
16th in xGA
18th in xGD
19th in possession
19th in shots conceded
17th in shots conceded on target
Would put some money on them going on a horrenderous second half run to get relegated if I was a betting man. Weren't 10/11 Blackpool like this?
Last edited:
15 points from the next 23 games potentially enough to keep them safe. Still have Leeds to play twice plus as well as obviously Burnley and Wolves again. Some of their stats are shit but they've put themselves in a great position.
Sorry for the veery belated reply: Hadn't heard of this notion prior to this post let alone knowing how it is being measured, and thought about making some research before responding. And then I forgot to do both, up until now.
Rules are these apparently:
- In our case, having a lot of bodies behind the ball might be causing the workload to be distributed more evenly across 5 or 6 defensive minded players, preventing any of them from reaching the threshold. By far the lowest hanging fruit to go for as an explanation.
- We're in the bottom half in terms of how much the ball stays in play according to this graph from last month. More idle time= Less opportunities to make (defensive) plays :
- We don't really block shots in dangerous areas. We're apparently 12th in that category according to this. We're also 13th in number of shots allowed on target. We just allow shots and live with the results: Conceding 17 in the last 11 league games. Brentford game was our only second clean sheet in that stretch, the other being Everton where they also missed some clear cut chances and had a goal disallowed.
- To add to the previous point, if I'm right in assuming that goalkeepers don't get these defensive contribution points, Vicario being 6th in number of saves might also have something to do with your question. Instead of blocking shots, we more often than not rely on either opponents missing the target or Vicario saving it. Or they simply score, as I've mentioned above.
Take all these with a grain of salt, but the answer might be some combination of these and other possible factors that I cannot think of right now.
You can see where we're going wrong
Found the guy on Twitter:
View: https://x.com/adnaaan433/status/1997602820489637892?s=20
TLDR: Experimenting with a back 2; going direct while sustaining accuracy and tempo
At the end of this post, I mentioned having plans of making a follow up one where I contrast the congestion in the centre with some footage where we played more free flowing football to see whether or not the latter might be the result of a discernible difference in team shape. It's hard to think of the instances of us playing such football under Frank, but Brighton game on matchday 5 sprang to my mind. We were quite sharp with our passing and movement even during the first half an hour where we went 2-0 down, and we eventually climbed our way back to the game with 2 goals from open play to secure a draw.
Lo and behold, there are striking similarities between what we had done there and what we did in the last 2 games against Brentford and Slavia.
No need to jump to wild conclusions from a brief screenshot 55 seconds in, but the distance between and also within the lines in a clear 2-4-4 shape is striking. The dotted area we're trying to bypass is the one teams would usually like to crowd as much as possible; we're going to the opposite way in accordance with our more direct football.
If you don't want all that tippy tappy stuff around the halfway line, might as well stretch the opposition defense to the fullest to both widen the passing angles and allow players spaces to move into without the ball.
It's a matter of semantics how to label this: A highly stretched back 4 in a 4-1-5 or a 2-3-5 with the 3 man midfield of Porro-Palhinha-Udogie sitting in front of the back 2. Either way, the main point is the enormous distance between and within the lines, and how conducive this is to a direct brand of football if that's the route Frank wants to take.
Virtually the same pattern of play that led to the first goal against Brentford, with Simons doing the running instead of Bergvall in the case of the latter.
We're once again willingly surrendering the dotted area at the expense of stretching Brighton's lines to open up passing lanes for frontline players: Going direct without hoofing it up
Romero actually doesn't take the clear passing option marked by the red arrow here, but it is on.
Kudus actually misses this beautiful run by Simons completely to pass it to the left instead, but the transition inside the opponent's final third is once again quite swift.
Well it, along with the last 2 games, clearly shows that our issues under Frank haven't been about trying to go direct per se. It's more about this serious misfit between some of the shapes Frank was using in possession and the emphasis on bypassing the midfield with direct passes forward.
In particular, using a back 2 where fullbacks are placed wide and forward to stretch the opponents' lines to the breaking point consistently creates openings in the centre to pass the ball towards with precision. This is both effective and good to watch, so there's no such conundrum that he has to tackle either.
I didn't think much about this game at that time, but in hindsight it is clear that Frank actually stumbled upon what's been working in the last 2 games of Brentford and Slavia a few months earlier. If he can't / doesn't want to be another possession merchant manager with hundreds of short passes next to his team's name every week, he doesn't have to.
At the end of this post, I mentioned having plans of making a follow up one where I contrast the congestion in the centre with some footage where we played more free flowing football to see whether or not the latter might be the result of a discernible difference in team shape. It's hard to think of the instances of us playing such football under Frank, but Brighton game on matchday 5 sprang to my mind. We were quite sharp with our passing and movement even during the first half an hour where we went 2-0 down, and we eventually climbed our way back to the game with 2 goals from open play to secure a draw.
Lo and behold, there are striking similarities between what we had done there and what we did in the last 2 games against Brentford and Slavia.
--------
To refresh our memories, we started this game with a base formation of 4-2-3-1:
Vicario
Porro-Romero-VDV-Udogie
Palhinha-Bentancur
Kudus-Bergvall-Odobert
Richarlison
Porro-Romero-VDV-Udogie
Palhinha-Bentancur
Kudus-Bergvall-Odobert
Richarlison
No need to jump to wild conclusions from a brief screenshot 55 seconds in, but the distance between and also within the lines in a clear 2-4-4 shape is striking. The dotted area we're trying to bypass is the one teams would usually like to crowd as much as possible; we're going to the opposite way in accordance with our more direct football.
If you don't want all that tippy tappy stuff around the halfway line, might as well stretch the opposition defense to the fullest to both widen the passing angles and allow players spaces to move into without the ball.
-------
It's a matter of semantics how to label this: A highly stretched back 4 in a 4-1-5 or a 2-3-5 with the 3 man midfield of Porro-Palhinha-Udogie sitting in front of the back 2. Either way, the main point is the enormous distance between and within the lines, and how conducive this is to a direct brand of football if that's the route Frank wants to take.
Virtually the same pattern of play that led to the first goal against Brentford, with Simons doing the running instead of Bergvall in the case of the latter.
--------
We're once again willingly surrendering the dotted area at the expense of stretching Brighton's lines to open up passing lanes for frontline players: Going direct without hoofing it up
--------
-------
Romero actually doesn't take the clear passing option marked by the red arrow here, but it is on.
--------
Kudus actually misses this beautiful run by Simons completely to pass it to the left instead, but the transition inside the opponent's final third is once again quite swift.
-------
So what's the point of all this?Well it, along with the last 2 games, clearly shows that our issues under Frank haven't been about trying to go direct per se. It's more about this serious misfit between some of the shapes Frank was using in possession and the emphasis on bypassing the midfield with direct passes forward.
In particular, using a back 2 where fullbacks are placed wide and forward to stretch the opponents' lines to the breaking point consistently creates openings in the centre to pass the ball towards with precision. This is both effective and good to watch, so there's no such conundrum that he has to tackle either.
I didn't think much about this game at that time, but in hindsight it is clear that Frank actually stumbled upon what's been working in the last 2 games of Brentford and Slavia a few months earlier. If he can't / doesn't want to be another possession merchant manager with hundreds of short passes next to his team's name every week, he doesn't have to.
All of ours in the shit quarter of the chart:
View: https://bsky.app/profile/datamb.football/post/3m7nlthcmvj2t
View: https://bsky.app/profile/datamb.football/post/3m7nlthcmvj2t
Baleba below both Rod and Pal
I think this one is more relevant for a 6 (and our guys are still in the shit quarter):
View: https://x.com/adnaaan433/status/1997285563309949142?s=20
Both important, not sure we can afford to go for an even less progressive midfielder though. Anderson smashing both those stats.
Baleba is good at breaking press/lines but he does it by dribbling/carrying out/past. The ideal is you pair up Baleba with someone like Anderson, or have him central pivot of a 3, with two 8's.
Last edited:
You could make the same argument for Villa tbf
TLDR: Spence the inverted fullback: Frank pays homage to Ange
Frank had already made a significant change against Brentford by switching the team shape in the build-up to a more ambitious 2-4-4 / 2-5-3 from a more cautious 3-2-4-1.
He then doubled down on this against Slavia by making Spence an additional central midfielder in possession as part of a few quite asymmetrical setups. Let's see:
Yeah I know, recorded with a potato. Still good enough to illustrate my point that'll become even clearer with the following few images though: In an almost identical fashion to the Brentford game, we're once again using a 2-4-1-3 / 2-4-4 shape in the initial build-up where:
There you see Simons as the sole link as I've mentioned. But Spence on the left, unlike Porro on the right, is not drifting wide as the play develops but instead stays in the centre like a central midfielder. So the aforementioned 2-4-1-3 is not a symmetrical one but quite the opposite. Something like this:
After carefully watching a midfield scramble unfold, Spence joins the ensuing attack like a box-to-box midfielder.
A clear 2-4 shape in the build-up; except an asymmetical one due to Spence tucking in to the midfield instead of standing somewhere inside the dotted area in the usual fashion. The same dotted lines also mark the area that VDV has to navigate all by himself due to the absence of a wide player in it, but I digress.
In this case VDV dribbles his way out of trouble before getting stopped by the referee. And yes, Spence is part of the front 4 now. Frank must have watched some 23/24 and early 24/25 Spurs footage after the Newcastle draw.
Spence is the central midfielder now
Vicario goes long instead
This could be the sequence in terms of illustrating the new role he played against Slavia. He starts by once again tucking in to the midfield to create that asymmetrical 4 man midfield. He then disappears from the scene altogether to push forward before reappearing in a one-two with Simons to achieve us the breakthrough.
So the asymmetrical 2-4-1-3 I've outlined above was regularly turning into an asymmetrical 2-3-2-3.
Frank had already made a significant change against Brentford by switching the team shape in the build-up to a more ambitious 2-4-4 / 2-5-3 from a more cautious 3-2-4-1.
He then doubled down on this against Slavia by making Spence an additional central midfielder in possession as part of a few quite asymmetrical setups. Let's see:
Yeah I know, recorded with a potato. Still good enough to illustrate my point that'll become even clearer with the following few images though: In an almost identical fashion to the Brentford game, we're once again using a 2-4-1-3 / 2-4-4 shape in the initial build-up where:
- Romero and VDV stay at the back to form a back 2
- Both fullbacks push forward by a notch to flank Gray and Palhinha to create a 4 man midfield
- Simons keeps his place as the sole link between the front and the back
- Kudus and Odobert also push forward by a notch to flank Richarlison in a 3 man frontline
There you see Simons as the sole link as I've mentioned. But Spence on the left, unlike Porro on the right, is not drifting wide as the play develops but instead stays in the centre like a central midfielder. So the aforementioned 2-4-1-3 is not a symmetrical one but quite the opposite. Something like this:
(2-4-1-3 Asymmetrical)
Romero--VDV
Porro---------Palhinha-Gray-Spence
Simons
Kudus-------------Richarlison----------------Odobert
Romero--VDV
Porro---------Palhinha-Gray-Spence
Simons
Kudus-------------Richarlison----------------Odobert
After carefully watching a midfield scramble unfold, Spence joins the ensuing attack like a box-to-box midfielder.
-------
A clear 2-4 shape in the build-up; except an asymmetical one due to Spence tucking in to the midfield instead of standing somewhere inside the dotted area in the usual fashion. The same dotted lines also mark the area that VDV has to navigate all by himself due to the absence of a wide player in it, but I digress.
In this case VDV dribbles his way out of trouble before getting stopped by the referee. And yes, Spence is part of the front 4 now. Frank must have watched some 23/24 and early 24/25 Spurs footage after the Newcastle draw.
-------
Spence is the central midfielder now
Vicario goes long instead
---------
This could be the sequence in terms of illustrating the new role he played against Slavia. He starts by once again tucking in to the midfield to create that asymmetrical 4 man midfield. He then disappears from the scene altogether to push forward before reappearing in a one-two with Simons to achieve us the breakthrough.
So the asymmetrical 2-4-1-3 I've outlined above was regularly turning into an asymmetrical 2-3-2-3.
(2-3-2-3 Asymmetrical)
Romero-VDV
Porro-------Palhinha-Gray
Simons-Spence
Kudus-------Richarlison-----------Odobert
-------
Might make a follow up post about the downsides of this adjustment (that will most likely become more apparent against higher quality opponents) after seeing more of it. Let's see.Romero-VDV
Porro-------Palhinha-Gray
Simons-Spence
Kudus-------Richarlison-----------Odobert
-------
That's his point about putting money on a second half collapse isn't it?
I mean if they were 15th the odds would be miniscule.
It’s only 18-1 and he’ll lose the bet. Too much obsession with xG instead of actual results.That's his point about putting money on a second half collapse isn't it?
I mean if they were 15th the odds would be miniscule.
There’s probably worse bets out there.