• 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...

    Get involved!

Tactics TFC's Tactical Autopsy Thread

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Disclaimer: Some terrifying numbers and trends. It can't go on like this can it?
--------------
Will make another post soon for the attacking metrics. Let's just say that the majority of them are one of the two:
  1. Simply terrible
  2. Actually fantastic but still worrisome because of their highly unsustainable nature, and more importantly the implications of this unsustainability going forward.
 
Last edited:
Time for some equally depressing attacking metrics
------​
  • We're T-6th in goals scored. We were as high as 3rd in this not long ago by the way. You can already intuit this to be more than fine without knowing anything else; but how great, and also difficult to sustain, this actually is will become more apparent at the end.​
  • We're 17th in xG. Self-explanatory really, and already gives an indication of the unsustainability of our goal count.​
  • We're 17th in number of shots. We're neither creating high quality chances nor going for low percentage attempts in the form of long range shots. We just don't shoot at all, presumably because we have significant issues in getting the ball to areas where shooting could be a legitimate option.​
  • We're 17th in number of shots on target. Shooting very little, often as part of low quality chances, will lead to few shots on target. Nothing surprising there.​
Points #2, #3, and #4 together paint the picture of a relegation level attack. Yet point #1 has it that we're among the highest scorers in the league. How?
  • We're 2nd in goals / shots ratio. That's how. We're only behind City in terms of making the most of our shooting opportunities. Complaining about clinical finishing sounds asinine, but only the under assumption that there's a strong chance for this trend to continue throughout the season. A team like City with their extremely talented frontline can count on that, but can we really? Or will our results, poor as they are, take a significant blow as we eventually start regressing to a mean of some sort in conversion department?​
-------​
So what are the implications? Both offensive and defensive metrics indicate a team that could do well to make it to the top 10 even. We're a proper bottom half team, and that's despite the fact that some of the key players have been regularly available so far.

Kudus has played 90 percent of all the available minutes
Romero has played 76 percent
VDV has played 93 percent
Porro has played 86 percent
Vicario has played the every minute

What would happen if even one or two of these missed substantial time? I don't even want to think about it.
 
Last edited:
A few more numbers
  • We're 8th in opponents conversion rate. This is a measure of the percentage of the opponents' shots that end up at the back of your net. Other things being equal, you obviously want this number to be as low as possible lest you start conceding a lot of goals. As you can see Sunderland lead the league right now with 7 percent, and some of the best teams in the league are also above us on this list. So this is good right?
Once again, sustainability is a major concern here. Knowing the stuff we do regarding how many shots we allow on target, how rarely we block shots and how many saves Vicario has to make, I can't help but feel that we'll start falling down on this list once more and more opponents put their scoring boots on. At the moment it seems like we're doing very little other than letting them have their chances and pray.
  • Opponents shots inside the box rate: If I'm getting this right, not sure, we're the 4th lowest in the percentage of shots that opponents take inside the box. That is, they're taking only 65 percent of their shots inside our box and the rest from the outside. Meanwhile for Man City, this rate is 74 to 26. I don't know what to think of this honestly.
On the one hand, pushing opponents farther away in their attempts sounds like a good thing. On the other hand, it could mean that they do not even bother trying to get inside the box because they do not need to. And the way we are 14th in xGA, and keep conceding from the edge of the box both indicate that the second explanation could have a lot of merit actually.
 
For the record, we've marginally improved on our XGA from 17 games last season. Last season after 17 games we were 25.21 XGA. After 17 games we are now 23.55. So it's taken Frank a pre season and 17 games to make us 0.1 XGA more defensively efficient per game.

Meanwhile our XG after 17 games last year was 35.24, this year after 17 games it's 19.03. So he's managed to decrease our XG by 0.96 a game.

We are currently running an average 0.26 XG deficit per game this season.

So if Frank continues like this, it will only take him 4.5 years to make the defensive improvements even up the offensive deficit.

:frankfacepalm:
 
Last edited:

Why are leading Premier League teams getting narrower?​

Liverpool and their narrow formation in the 2-1 away win against Tottenham

Liverpool and their narrow formation in the 2-1 away win against Tottenham
By Michael Cox
Dec. 23, 2025Updated 7:33 am GMT+1

In the season leading up to a World Cup, a good run of form by an English player is often considered primarily in relation to international duty. Morgan Rogers’ excellent performances for Aston Villa, with debate around whether he deserves to be England’s starting No 10 over Real Madrid’s Jude Bellingham — third in the Ballon d’Or last year — is a case in point.

But there probably hasn’t been enough focus on the reason Rogers has been playing so well — he hasn’t actually been playing in that No 10 position at all. And therefore, while it is perfectly reasonable to debate Thomas Tuchel’s thinking, considering he has fielded Rogers centrally, the way to get the best out of Rogers may be to not play him as a No 10 at all.

Maybe that’s a debate for next summer. But it is an interesting example of a Premier League trend: a slight shift away from wingers, or even players occupying the wide zones, and a shift back towards fielding half-wingers, half-playmakers in the notionally wider roles.

Finding space between the lines as a No 10 in the modern game, with space compressed and little time on the ball, is difficult. Drifting in from wider positions is often easier. Manchester City’s transformation back into title challengers, and Liverpool’s period of stability after a terrible run of form, have owed to focusing on central areas.

City went first. Their 3-0 win against Liverpool in November epitomised their new approach, which wasn’t simply about fielding a narrower side, but about Pep Guardiola’s usual positional rules going out of the window.

Guardiola has been through several iterations of wide players in his near-decade at City, but this is the first time he has used two drifting playmakers, most recently Phil Foden and Rayan Cherki. The latter has tended to hold more width, including for a fabulous rabona assist for Foden against Sunderland.

WHAT YOU SHOULD READ NEXT
Rayan Cherki’s rabona assist and a moment to make you gasp
Rayan Cherki’s rabona assist and a moment to make you gasp
The Frenchman's moment of exquisite skill left all who saw it dumbfounded. But what does it mean for his City career?

But at times this feels, festively enough, like the ‘Christmas Tree’ formation, the 4-3-2-1. Cherki’s assist for Foden against Crystal Palace earlier this month was less spectacular — a simple sideways pass — but it was more typical of their roles.

f1-1.png


f2.png


After all, City are setting up like this. Here, against Leeds United last month, it’s Foden and Jeremy Doku as the central players behind Erling Haaland.

city.png


Arne Slot has fallen back onto something similar, which was evidently not his plan in August. But with Mohamed Salah out of favour, Florian Wirtz struggling to get on the ball in a No 10 role, and a lack of midfield balance, Slot has gone narrow. Wirtz has been fielded from the left and has been more influential. On the right, Slot is using Dominik Szoboszlai, who, unusually, has been a jack-of-all-trades and Liverpool’s best player this season.

This, really, is two central players operating as the wider players in a 4-2-3-1, creating an unusual system. The former Liverpool defender and Sky Sports pundit Jamie Carragher called it “the pentagon” on a recent episode of Monday Night Football, which might not catch on, but his point was that this does feel different from the usual 4-2-3-1.

Look at the passing map from the 2-1 weekend win away to Tottenham Hotspur, and you find all five midfielders almost on top of each other, with striker Hugo Ekitike among them.

image-12-1.png


Their opener in that game was a slight freak goal, as it came from Cristian Romero thumping a pass against Alexis Mac Allister, and the ball rebounded nicely for Alexander Isak.

1.png


But the ‘wide’ players were perfectly in position to sprint forward inside the opposition full-backs…

2.png


… and combine to switch the play past Tottenham’s centre-backs…

3.png


… before Wirtz slipped in Isak to finish.

4.png


Rogers’ role at Villa isn’t entirely new, and Unai Emery is a manager who has always been sceptical about the value of proper wingers. His Villarreal side that won the Europa League in 2021 effectively featured four ‘proper’ central midfielders.

You could say something similar about this Villa, with John McGinn and Rogers on the sides, especially as both naturally move inside to shoot with their stronger foot. Granted, they take deeper and wider defensive positions than Wirtz and Szoboszlai, but in attack, they operate in a similar way.

Rogers was the star against Manchester United this weekend, but McGinn has been in excellent form this season, largely from the right. The Scotland international was the man who found Rogers for his opener with a pass from a central position…

vil2.png


… and for Rogers’ second goal, McGinn was in a central position in the box, shouting for a pass.

vil1.png


Maybe this — Liverpool’s interpretation in particular — is what the 4-2-3-1 was intended as. Whereas other formations have an obvious start point in footballing history, the strange thing about 4-2-3-1 was that teams were playing it — two deep midfielders and a No 10 dropping off — before anyone called it a 4-2-3-1.

The title-winning Woolwich and Manchester United sides of the 1990s were considered to play a 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1, but in 21st-century notations they would be called a 4-2-3-1 with no arguments. Even the approach of Rafael Benitez at Liverpool was always considered a 4-2-3-1 but looked like 4-4-2 without possession, with the wide players tasked with shuttling up and down the lines, never leaving their vertical zones. That wasn’t a formation that needed much differentiation from 4-4-1-1.

Without getting too existential about it, the initial idea of 4-2-3-1 was surely that the trio behind the striker were a tighter unit, three No 10s spread across the pitch. The three were, to put it one way, no ‘wider’ than the three in a 4-3-2-1, which is a system designed to pack central areas. And therefore, maybe what Slot is doing is actually using a ‘true’ 4-2-3-1.

It remains to be seen how these systems fare for the rest of the season. But there are three sides unbeaten in their last five Premier League games — Manchester City, Liverpool and Villa — and all are playing with ‘wide players’ who aren’t very wide at all.
 
xG and goals scored under Ange always flattered us to some degree; our attack was never as potent as those numbers indicated.We just more often than not were piling on teams in garbage time, in a way that other teams don't. Disregarding this crucial context, believers for months were banging on about how a drastic turnaround supposedly prophesied by numbers and metrics was right around the corner.

The guy didn't believe in the notion of game management; and when this cavalier attitude came back to bite us in the form of blown 2 goal leads, he would just shrug his shoulders and brush it aside as occupational hazard. I'm not going to get misty-eyed about those days not only because we were leaking goals; but we also were quite crap at breaking down teams, often relying on late goals scored after the 75th minute mark to secure points in a way that papered over the cracks for the majority of 23/24 in particular.

Week 5: Trailed Sheff Utd 0-1 until the 90th minute, got all 3 points at the end.
Week 7: Drew with Liverpool until the 96th minute, got the additional 2 points with an own goal.
Week 14: Trailed City 3-2 until the 90th minute, secured a point.
Week 24: Drew with Brighton until the 96th minute, got the additional 2 points at the end.
Week 27: Trailed Palace 0-1 until the 77th minute, won 3-1.
Week 30: Drew with Luton until the 86th minute, won 2-1.
Week 37: Drew with Burnley until the 82th minute, won 2-1.

That's 15 points earned from highly unlikely situations, in a season where 6 points separated 5th from 8th. Fine margins.

Some of the names of the teams there are even more telling: If you needed last minute heroics to beat at home all 3 teams that would eventually get relegated that season, not to mention a 9 man Liverpool team, your attack probably wasn't as good as indicated by a few raw numbers.

-------​
The moral of the story is that, the discrepancy in attacking prowess between the two managers isn't as large as indicated by those numbers. The area where Frank has been a complete disappointment is the other end instead, which probably deserves a post of its own.
 
xG and goals scored under Ange always flattered us to some degree; our attack was never as potent as those numbers indicated.We just more often than not were piling on teams in garbage time, in a way that other teams don't. Disregarding this crucial context, believers for months were banging on about how a drastic turnaround supposedly prophesied by numbers and metrics was right around the corner.

The guy didn't believe in the notion of game management; and when this cavalier attitude came back to bite us in the form of blown 2 goal leads, he would just shrug his shoulders and brush it aside as occupational hazard. I'm not going to get misty-eyed about those days not only because we were leaking goals; but we also were quite crap at breaking down teams, often relying on late goals scored after the 75th minute mark to secure points in a way that papered over the cracks for the majority of 23/24 in particular.

Week 5: Trailed Sheff Utd 0-1 until the 90th minute, got all 3 points at the end.
Week 7: Drew with Liverpool until the 96th minute, got the additional 2 points with an own goal.
Week 14: Trailed City 3-2 until the 90th minute, secured a point.
Week 24: Drew with Brighton until the 96th minute, got the additional 2 points at the end.
Week 27: Trailed Palace 0-1 until the 77th minute, won 3-1.
Week 30: Drew with Luton until the 86th minute, won 2-1.
Week 37: Drew with Burnley until the 82th minute, won 2-1.

That's 15 points earned from highly unlikely situations, in a season where 6 points separated 5th from 8th. Fine margins.

Some of the names of the teams there are even more telling: If you needed last minute heroics to beat at home all 3 teams that would eventually get relegated that season, not to mention a 9 man Liverpool team, your attack probably wasn't as good as indicated by a few raw numbers.

-------​
The moral of the story is that, the discrepancy in attacking prowess between the two managers isn't as large as indicated by those numbers. The area where Frank has been a complete disappointment is the other end instead, which probably deserves a post of its own.

It’s a bit harsh criticising a coach for a team that turns draws to wins by keeping up pressure until the end.

By all means criticise what goes before, but we’d rather a team that does that than doesn’t wouldn’t we?

I don’t necessarily agree that XG/goals flattered Ange. His philosophy was very much attack biased, that was the payoff, the payout was what that bias didn’t address. Before he came reports said that was pretty much his ethos, and he said the same. It was naive football, especially with a shit squad, and I get why he was sacked, but it did have upside at times.
 
It’s a bit harsh criticising a coach for a team that turns draws to wins by keeping up pressure until the end.

By all means criticise what goes before, but we’d rather a team that does that than doesn’t wouldn’t we?
Of course we'd rather win than not win.

The point was that, 74 goals on 68 xG that season created the impression of a top tier attack which was in reality struggling to break down some of the worst teams in the league on multiple occasions. So those narrow wins in that sense papered over the cracks: Cracks in our attacking play.

Once the new season kicked in and we started struggling to get those late goals against equally weak teams in Leicester, a then winless Palace, Ipswich and Fulham, things started not looking so rosy.

As per usual, it's about sustainability.

I don’t necessarily agree that XG/goals flattered Ange. His philosophy was very much attack biased,

An unintended consequence of that philosophy was a form of stat-padding. That's all I'm saying.

He obviously wasn't telling his players to push themselves to the limit just to rack a few ultimately meaningless metrics up in case that's what you thought I was implying, but the end result was that regardless.

This kind of obvious stat-padding was happening too by the way, where we were suddenly scoring goals and creating chances against opponents that were just coasting. Two sides of the same coin, and they together can skew the numbers in a quite misleading and flattering manner in the long run.
 
Of course we'd rather win than not win.

The point was that, 74 goals on 68 xG that season created the impression of a top tier attack which was in reality struggling to break down some of the worst teams in the league on multiple occasions. So those narrow wins in that sense papered over the cracks: Cracks in our attacking play.

Once the new season kicked in and we started struggling to get those late goals against equally weak teams in Leicester, a then winless Palace, Ipswich and Fulham, things started not looking so rosy.

As per usual, it's about sustainability.



An unintended consequence of that philosophy was a form of stat-padding. That's all I'm saying.

He obviously wasn't telling his players to push themselves to the limit just to rack a few ultimately meaningless metrics up in case that's what you thought I was implying, but the end result was that regardless.

This kind of obvious stat-padding was happening too by the way, where we were suddenly scoring goals and creating chances against opponents that were just coasting. Two sides of the same coin, and they together can skew the numbers in a quite misleading and flattering manner in the long run.


Agree with much. I would just say that I think our team, and attack in particular was individually atrocious, as bad as it had ever been in the PL, and got even worse with injuries. I think it was actually Ange’s system that got us producing a half decent xg/goals tally (but of course that system came at a heavy defensive price) despite having poor attacking players (including midfielders).

Our XG and goals we’re actually that other top 7–8 side, but our individual talent definitely wasn’t and we do have to caveat some of the systematic defensive frailties with the fact that we had a poor group of midfielders and injuries to our defence almost all season whilst playing two games a week for the whole season almost.

It is really difficult to assess whether we would’ve been better off with a different system coach with the same group with the same problems or whether we’ve been worse off. The evidence of Frank makes it quite hard to assess which would’ve been better/worse.

And I’m not making a case for either because personally I think both coaches are deeply flawed, just interesting to figure out whether we’d have been better off or worse off with a different approach last season with that really poor squad.
 
Agree with much. I would just say that I think our team, and attack in particular was individually atrocious, as bad as it had ever been in the PL, and got even worse with injuries. I think it was actually Ange’s system that got us producing a half decent xg/goals tally (but of course that system came at a heavy defensive price) despite having poor attacking players (including midfielders).
True. 74 goals on 68 xG in 23/24, even adjusted for non-garbage time, was a pretty good return from those group of players considering we:
  1. Played without a proper striker virtually the entire season, except a brief purple patch where Richarlison had 9 goals in 625 minutes. He had to really improvise there; and we could've easily hit the 80 mark with a good-not-great striker, let alone a goal scoring machine like Kane.
  2. Started lacking a deep playmaker/ball carrier after Bissouma's earlier purple patch ended; and that issue has only been amplified since then.
I wasn't necessarily complaining about our state of attack under him, and very few people did as far as I can remember.

It is really difficult to assess whether we would’ve been better off with a different system coach with the same group with the same problems or whether we’ve been worse off. The evidence of Frank makes it quite hard to assess which would’ve been better/worse.

And I’m not making a case for either because personally I think both coaches are deeply flawed, just interesting to figure out whether we’d have been better off or worse off with a different approach last season with that really poor squad.
A top 8-10 finish should be achieavable even with this team, let alone the last year's that definitely had more attacking firepower in case that's what you're wondering.

Historical trends indicate that conceding less than 50 virtually guarantees your place inside the top 10 in this league, unless you're scoring less than one a game or something. And the fact that we're currently sitting with 26 goals after 17 games with this depleted squad and a manager that looks completely lost means that the second part is quite irrelevant for a club like us. We'll always find a way to score at least at a respectable level.

So, had we said goodbye to Ange after 23/24 and started the last season with a different guy, his main task would've been to ensure that we stayed under 50 while relying on some quality up front in the form of Maddison, Son and a few others to prevent the goals from drying up entirely. Both seem very doable to me.

As for the former: Keep let's say 8 clean sheets in a season, a very modest assumption in fact since we even with Ange kept 7 and 6 respectively, and you could afford to concede 1.5 a game in the remaining 30 to still stay under. We wouldn't have needed a Bordalas clone to achieve that, and we also don't need one now.

As for the latter: Well, I've already outlined my reasoning. If this of all teams is currently on pace for a 58 goal season, we wouldn't have needed an Ange clone to replace him to keep us around the 55-60 range as the bare minimum.

Add these two together, and you'd have ended up with a team in the 5th-8th range probably knowing that in reality:
  • Chelsea finished 4th with 64:43
  • Villa finished 6th with 58:51
  • Forest finished 7th with 58:46
You don't need to break goal scoring records to get those spots. So in that sense, this prevalent emphasis on how many attackers and how much firepower we're missing right now is also a red herring.
 
Last edited:

View: https://x.com/rudolphn17/status/2005348352808898562?s=46

1️⃣ 20 games left and we need just 13 more points to match last season’s total under Ange 😂

2️⃣ 20 games left and we’ve already matched the number of league clean sheets Ange managed all of last season.
Clean-sheet mentality 😂

3️⃣ 20 games left and we need 37 more goals (1.85 per game) to draw level with the 64 goals we scored last season under our greatest ever attacking manager 😂

4️⃣ We’re 4 points off 5th (Chelsea) and 7 points off 4th (Liverpool).
At the same time, we’re 12 points clear of 18th (West Ham) and 7 clear of 17th (Forest) this league table is absolutely wild.

With Brentford, Sunderland, Bournemouth, West Ham and Burnley to play before the end of January, there’s a genuine opportunity to push ourselves into the top 4/5 before the window closes and kick on from there 👆📈

5️⃣ It’s not pretty, and offensively it can and must improve which is something Frank has repeatedly acknowledged (read his comments) but with Deki and Solanke due back in January and serious money to spend in the window, there’s plenty to be optimistic about because it will only get better 🚀
 




Such a nothing game really, where these two accounted for the majority of the combined xG ;

eqmcal.gif


XCAU67.gif


Palace with their usual strategy of having Mateta drop deep in a Kane-esque fashion looked effective in the first 20 minutes or so, the stretch where we at least pretended to have some interest in playing football. But as soon as we dropped the act and started sitting back unashamedly with 10 men, exclusively so after taking the lead, the strategy also mostly devolved to lots of sideways and backwards passing before punting it to Mateta surrounded by a few defenders.

Wouldn't be surprised if he ceded the possession against Brentford too, after getting a win & clean sheet against one of the most direct teams in the league in Palace. But then our transition play is not any better than our set play: 7 through balls halfway into a league campaign is an indictment not only of the latter but also of the former.

wWZnoK.gif


V3ZKO-.gif


Looks like a bunch of 9 year olds playing a game of kick and run.
 
Last edited:
Why is Bergvall being asked to play wide left Odobert has to start. I think Frank is using Bergvall defensively because he doesn't trust him in the pivot but likes his physicality. He is not a wide player and can't carry effectively from out wide. This kids being stalled as another jack of all trades. Really worried by Frank's thinking in so many areas.
 
Why is Bergvall being asked to play wide left Odobert has to start. I think Frank is using Bergvall defensively because he doesn't trust him in the pivot but likes his physicality. He is not a wide player and can't carry effectively from out wide. This kids being stalled as another jack of all trades. Really worried by Frank's thinking in so many areas.

He was played as a 10/ACM today? RKM was left.
 
Back
Top