This is the kind of thing that would piss Ange off because his whole thing has moving the ball forward quickly as a key principle.
Shows why we are looking at 8's as well,
-
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
This is the kind of thing that would piss Ange off because his whole thing has moving the ball forward quickly as a key principle.
Shows why we are looking at 8's as well,
Still searching for that data. An odd thing I noticed on the way is that Spurs had the third most tackles + interceptions in the league and were tied with Chelski for most errors (24) leading to a shot. What really stands out about tackles + interceptions is the gap between Spurs (1079) and Man City (750). Woolrich was 4th fewest at 902. Could it be, to some degree, that having a high number of tackles is indicative of being "late" on plays? That might also tie into the FK stat.
That’s interesting.
What’s a tackle and what’s an interception?
There’s probably a grey area but from an eye test you’d always prefer an interception over a tackle and they can’t give away free kicks
The teams ahead of us in terms of number of tackles & intercepts all spent a lot more time out of possession.
If you divide the number of tackles & intercepts into the time out of possession it's interesting:
| Team | Minutes Out of Possession* | Tackles | Interceptions | Tackles + Intercepts | Mins out of poss per tackle+intercept |
| Tottenham Hotspur | 1313 | 724 | 355 | 1079 | 1.22 |
| Liverpool | 1324 | 677 | 292 | 969 | 1.37 |
| Chelsea | 1416 | 663 | 298 | 961 | 1.47 |
| Brighton & Hove Albion | 1375 | 644 | 288 | 932 | 1.48 |
| Woolwich | 1430 | 610 | 292 | 902 | 1.58 |
| Manchester City | 1190 | 517 | 233 | 750 | 1.59 |
| Fulham | 1689 | 679 | 371 | 1050 | 1.61 |
| Manchester United | 1689 | 676 | 313 | 989 | 1.71 |
| Wolverhampton Wanderers | 1748 | 739 | 284 | 1023 | 1.71 |
| Newcastle United | 1635 | 661 | 285 | 946 | 1.73 |
| Brentford | 1874 | 677 | 378 | 1055 | 1.78 |
| Crystal Palace | 1973 | 788 | 322 | 1110 | 1.78 |
| Bournemouth | 1902 | 693 | 357 | 1050 | 1.81 |
| Everton | 2025 | 743 | 358 | 1101 | 1.84 |
| Nottingham Forest | 2031 | 728 | 331 | 1059 | 1.92 |
| West Ham United | 2014 | 684 | 361 | 1045 | 1.93 |
| Luton Town | 1970 | 652 | 325 | 977 | 2.02 |
| Burnley | 1799 | 607 | 280 | 887 | 2.03 |
| Aston Villa | 1604 | 547 | 236 | 783 | 2.05 |
| Sheffield United | 2196 | 709 | 347 | 1056 | 2.08 |
Spurs clear leaders on that one. Aston Villa an interesting one near the bottom - not in any hurry to win the ball back apparently.
If you look from the other side, minutes in possession before being tackled or intercepted:
| Team | Tkld | Intd | Tkld+Intd | Minutes in possession | Mins in Poss until Tkl'd or Int'd |
| Manchester City | 638 | 314 | 952 | 2230 | 2.34 |
| Woolwich | 679 | 299 | 978 | 1990 | 2.04 |
| Brighton & Hove Albion | 664 | 355 | 1019 | 2045 | 2.01 |
| Fulham | 557 | 321 | 878 | 1731 | 1.97 |
| Liverpool | 738 | 378 | 1116 | 2096 | 1.88 |
| Brentford | 540 | 293 | 833 | 1546 | 1.86 |
| Tottenham Hotspur | 738 | 416 | 1154 | 2107 | 1.83 |
| Chelsea | 735 | 374 | 1109 | 2004 | 1.81 |
| Burnley | 625 | 292 | 917 | 1621 | 1.77 |
| Aston Villa | 731 | 304 | 1035 | 1816 | 1.75 |
| Newcastle United | 687 | 341 | 1028 | 1785 | 1.74 |
| Manchester United | 645 | 377 | 1022 | 1731 | 1.69 |
| Nottingham Forest | 554 | 289 | 843 | 1389 | 1.65 |
| Everton | 587 | 262 | 849 | 1395 | 1.64 |
| Wolverhampton Wanderers | 713 | 329 | 1042 | 1672 | 1.60 |
| Luton Town | 716 | 269 | 985 | 1450 | 1.47 |
| West Ham United | 718 | 253 | 971 | 1406 | 1.45 |
| Bournemouth | 800 | 264 | 1064 | 1518 | 1.43 |
| Sheffield United | 608 | 275 | 883 | 1224 | 1.39 |
| Crystal Palace | 746 | 301 | 1047 | 1447 | 1.38 |
And yes this second one is not very meaningful because it doesn't take into account risk/reward, eg it will score highly for low-risk horseshoe tiki-taka. Still, it does highlight that for the style of game we are trying to play, our execution in possession has room to improve.
This is interesting to me because we had more interceptions per minute out of possession than any of arse, shitty, or the dippers.
I was expecting that we had more tackles per minute oop and that might explain why we gave away so many FKs and corners. But it seems we just gave away set pieces from being more aggressive to get the ball back. Maybe shows that officials are still adjusting to the way we play and maybe we don't get punished as much for a different style of play next year?
Or we adjust to our own style a bit more and get slightly more selective with the tackles we commit to?
Yeah I don't think we can blame the refs. Just our players either less experienced in the dark arts, or a fraction too impatient, or a bit of both. Our shape in defensive transition is sketchy at best and often puts us in a on the wrong side of the opponent to make a tackle, often within the dangerous-set-piece arc.
Last edited:
We definitely need to get better at winning the whistle we need/want from officials.
City are excellent at it.
We did get a raw deal from officials after that Liverpool game though. Was so obvious.
I'm pretty sure moving Cuti to DM would fix it
Well done. I think you explained the first one well with the example of Aston Villa. Contrasting them to Spurs you get the idea the number you calculated defines how aggressively a team is pressing. Not necessarily how effectively, but how committed to the press they are. Then you could take the second set of numbers you show as being how effective a team is at controlling the ball in possession, or at least how much care they take with the ball.
Compare 2022/23 stats
Tackles + Intercepts when Out of Possession:
| Team | Minutes Out of Possession* | Tackles | Interceptions | Tackles + Intercepts | Mins out of poss per tackle+intercept | 2023/24 | Improvement 2024 |
| Chelsea | 1412 | 740 | 341 | 1081 | 1.31 | 1.47 | -13% |
| Liverpool | 1341 | 590 | 333 | 923 | 1.45 | 1.37 | +6% |
| Leeds United | 1813 | 840 | 392 | 1232 | 1.47 | #N/A | #N/A |
| Brighton | 1361 | 616 | 303 | 919 | 1.48 | 1.48 | 0% |
| Manchester Utd | 1583 | 657 | 352 | 1009 | 1.57 | 1.71 | -9% |
| Southampton | 1898 | 713 | 428 | 1141 | 1.66 | #N/A | #N/A |
| Leicester City | 1789 | 699 | 367 | 1066 | 1.68 | #N/A | #N/A |
| Woolwich | 1392 | 568 | 237 | 805 | 1.73 | 1.58 | +8% |
| Newcastle Utd | 1631 | 607 | 333 | 940 | 1.74 | 1.73 | 0% |
| Manchester City | 1207 | 471 | 223 | 694 | 1.74 | 1.59 | +9% |
| Crystal Palace | 1837 | 690 | 359 | 1049 | 1.75 | 1.78 | -2% |
| Everton | 1956 | 708 | 390 | 1098 | 1.78 | 1.84 | -3% |
| Tottenham | 1710 | 619 | 340 | 959 | 1.78 | 1.22 | +32% |
| Aston Villa | 1734 | 632 | 324 | 956 | 1.81 | 2.05 | -13% |
| Fulham | 1751 | 625 | 340 | 965 | 1.81 | 1.61 | +11% |
| Wolves | 1713 | 660 | 279 | 939 | 1.82 | 1.71 | +6% |
| West Ham | 1980 | 608 | 408 | 1016 | 1.95 | 1.93 | +1% |
| Brentford | 1922 | 587 | 341 | 928 | 2.07 | 1.78 | +14% |
| Bournemouth | 2038 | 618 | 353 | 971 | 2.10 | 1.81 | +14% |
| Nott'ham Forest | 2134 | 659 | 349 | 1008 | 2.12 | 1.92 | +9% |
Tackled or Intercepted when In Possession:
| Team | Tkld | Intd | Tkld+Intd | Minutes in possession | Mins in Poss until Tkl'd or Int'd | 2023/24 | 2024 Improvement |
| Chelsea | 733 | 374 | 1107 | 2008 | 1.81 | 1.81 | 0% |
| Liverpool | 693 | 410 | 1103 | 2079 | 1.89 | 1.88 | 0% |
| Leeds United | 749 | 391 | 1140 | 1607 | 1.41 | #N/A | #N/A |
| Brighton | 603 | 417 | 1020 | 2059 | 2.02 | 2.01 | -1% |
| Manchester Utd | 631 | 415 | 1046 | 1837 | 1.76 | 1.69 | -4% |
| Southampton | 718 | 318 | 1036 | 1522 | 1.47 | #N/A | #N/A |
| Leicester City | 558 | 339 | 897 | 1631 | 1.82 | #N/A | #N/A |
| Woolwich | 668 | 360 | 1028 | 2028 | 1.97 | 2.04 | +3% |
| Newcastle Utd | 685 | 341 | 1026 | 1789 | 1.74 | 1.74 | 0% |
| Manchester City | 537 | 327 | 864 | 2213 | 2.56 | 2.34 | -9% |
| Crystal Palace | 771 | 366 | 1137 | 1583 | 1.39 | 1.38 | -1% |
| Everton | 596 | 275 | 871 | 1464 | 1.68 | 1.64 | -2% |
| Tottenham | 644 | 322 | 966 | 1710 | 1.77 | 1.83 | +3% |
| Aston Villa | 650 | 332 | 982 | 1686 | 1.72 | 1.75 | +2% |
| Fulham | 617 | 340 | 957 | 1669 | 1.74 | 1.97 | 13% |
| Wolves | 628 | 317 | 945 | 1707 | 1.81 | 1.60 | -11% |
| West Ham | 623 | 292 | 915 | 1440 | 1.57 | 1.45 | -8% |
| Brentford | 583 | 291 | 874 | 1498 | 1.71 | 1.86 | 8% |
| Bournemouth | 711 | 279 | 990 | 1382 | 1.40 | 1.43 | 2% |
| Nott'ham Forest | 509 | 286 | 795 | 1286 | 1.62 | 1.65 | 2% |
Interesting that Fulham's improvement across both stats didn't translate to significantly better possession (ok increased slightly from to 48.8% to 50.6%) and they ended up with 5 fewer points. Spurs possession increased from 50% to 61.6% and finished the season with 6 more points.
Sorry this isn't a deep dive into tactical analysis that no one has ever considered before but a mundane question.
Can someone tell me what an "inverted fullback" is? I assumed it came from the same line of thinking as "inverted wingers". In my mind that's a left footed winger playing on the right wing.
But when full backs are being spoken about I get the impression that it's just someone nominally playing full back but with instruction to play in midfield when the team are in an attacking or transistional period of play. Is this right?
Can someone tell me what an "inverted fullback" is? I assumed it came from the same line of thinking as "inverted wingers". In my mind that's a left footed winger playing on the right wing.
But when full backs are being spoken about I get the impression that it's just someone nominally playing full back but with instruction to play in midfield when the team are in an attacking or transistional period of play. Is this right?
Correct. They're just full backs who move inside to the central space.
The same way an inverted winger would operate by moving inside. You would just typically play a right footer on the left, so they can cut in on their dominant foot, which allows full backs to overlap and keep the width.
Ideally when you play inverted full backs, you want typical wingers playing on their strongest side to provide the width that's usually provided by the full backs.
I think inverted fullbacks can have two meanings. The first is as
Starks
said, when you play deliberately play a left footed FB right or right footed FB left, often to counter opposing inverted wingers. The second is the way Ange uses our FB's, which is right footed RB on right and left footed left back on left but instead of hugging the touch line, they play further inside the pitch as auxiliary midfielders and the wide forwards play more out wide (usually).The first is a defensive tactic, the second an offensive (bias) tactic designed to help you play through a press and overload midfield/attack.
View: https://youtu.be/ahCoFRvC_aM?si=pc24DUH9lNdxjEgA
Very important to understand though that Ange's system is completely unique, he asks BOTH his FB's to invert at the same time........
View: https://youtu.be/hYVxYSkjrc4?si=xpyf6IJo3CpelDAy
2023/24 season, interesting to look at goal conceded per minute out-of-possession:
Spurs conceded a goal every 21.5 minutes that the opponents had the ball. Only Sheffield leaked goals faster.
Arguably we should expect a high leakage rate playing Ange-ball; playing high-risk attacking football and committing a lot of players forward makes us vulnerable on the counter. Still plenty of room for improvement though.
More of a concern therefore is goals scored per minute in possession:
Our high risk attack must translate to more goals per minute in possession (ie less minutes possession per goal) in order for the strategy to be successful. Having the 13th most effective attack when in possession is not going to cut it.
It's no surprise that Ange spoke about strengthening up top during this transfer window. I just hope the management team can deliver on that.
Some interesting comparisons above:
Woolwich vs Citeh: Woolwich significantly lower goal leakage rate, and ahead on goal scoring rate, but Citeh's unmatched ability to keep possession was enough to get them over the line.
Everton vs BHA vs Newcastle:
Everton (Dycheball): 4th worst attack and 3rd worst at keeping possession, but still managed to finish 10th (before FFP deductions) due to having 2nd best (!) defence.
Compare to Brighton / De Zerbi-ball: 2nd worst attack and 3rd worst defence, but still managed to finish 12th (before Everton FFP deduction) due to 4th best for possession%
Compare to Newcastle: best (!) attack per minute in possession but distinctly mediocre possession% and defence, only good enough for 7th.
| Team | Possession% | GF | GA | Mins OOP / GA |
| Woolwich | 58.2 | 91 | 29 | 49.3 |
| Everton | 40.8 | 40 | 51 | 39.7 |
| Manchester City | 65.2 | 96 | 34 | 35.0 |
| Crystal Palace | 42.3 | 57 | 58 | 34.0 |
| Liverpool | 61.3 | 86 | 41 | 32.3 |
| Nottingham Forest | 40.6 | 49 | 67 | 30.3 |
| Manchester United | 50.6 | 57 | 58 | 29.1 |
| Brentford | 45.2 | 56 | 65 | 28.8 |
| Bournemouth | 44.4 | 54 | 67 | 28.4 |
| Fulham | 50.6 | 55 | 61 | 27.7 |
| West Ham | 41.1 | 60 | 74 | 27.2 |
| Wolverhampton Wanderers | 48.9 | 50 | 65 | 26.9 |
| Newcastle United | 52.2 | 85 | 62 | 26.4 |
| Aston Villa | 53.1 | 76 | 61 | 26.3 |
| Luton | 42.4 | 52 | 85 | 23.2 |
| Burnley | 47.4 | 41 | 78 | 23.1 |
| Chelsea | 58.6 | 77 | 63 | 22.5 |
| Brighton | 59.8 | 55 | 62 | 22.2 |
| Tottenham | 61.6 | 74 | 61 | 21.5 |
| Sheffield United | 35.8 | 35 | 104 | 21.1 |
Spurs conceded a goal every 21.5 minutes that the opponents had the ball. Only Sheffield leaked goals faster.
Arguably we should expect a high leakage rate playing Ange-ball; playing high-risk attacking football and committing a lot of players forward makes us vulnerable on the counter. Still plenty of room for improvement though.
More of a concern therefore is goals scored per minute in possession:
| Team | Possession% | GF | GA | Mins Poss / Goal Scored |
| Newcastle United | 52.2 | 85 | 62 | 21.0 |
| Woolwich | 58.2 | 91 | 29 | 21.9 |
| Manchester City | 65.2 | 96 | 34 | 23.2 |
| West Ham | 41.1 | 60 | 74 | 23.4 |
| Aston Villa | 53.1 | 76 | 61 | 23.9 |
| Liverpool | 61.3 | 86 | 41 | 24.4 |
| Crystal Palace | 42.3 | 57 | 58 | 25.4 |
| Chelsea | 58.6 | 77 | 63 | 26.0 |
| Brentford | 45.2 | 56 | 65 | 27.6 |
| Luton | 42.4 | 52 | 85 | 27.9 |
| Bournemouth | 44.4 | 54 | 67 | 28.1 |
| Nottingham Forest | 40.6 | 49 | 67 | 28.3 |
| Tottenham | 61.6 | 74 | 61 | 28.5 |
| Manchester United | 50.6 | 57 | 58 | 30.4 |
| Fulham | 50.6 | 55 | 61 | 31.5 |
| Wolverhampton Wanderers | 48.9 | 50 | 65 | 33.4 |
| Everton | 40.8 | 40 | 51 | 34.9 |
| Sheffield United | 35.8 | 35 | 104 | 35.0 |
| Brighton | 59.8 | 55 | 62 | 37.2 |
| Burnley | 47.4 | 41 | 78 | 39.5 |
Our high risk attack must translate to more goals per minute in possession (ie less minutes possession per goal) in order for the strategy to be successful. Having the 13th most effective attack when in possession is not going to cut it.
It's no surprise that Ange spoke about strengthening up top during this transfer window. I just hope the management team can deliver on that.
Some interesting comparisons above:
Woolwich vs Citeh: Woolwich significantly lower goal leakage rate, and ahead on goal scoring rate, but Citeh's unmatched ability to keep possession was enough to get them over the line.
Everton vs BHA vs Newcastle:
Everton (Dycheball): 4th worst attack and 3rd worst at keeping possession, but still managed to finish 10th (before FFP deductions) due to having 2nd best (!) defence.
Compare to Brighton / De Zerbi-ball: 2nd worst attack and 3rd worst defence, but still managed to finish 12th (before Everton FFP deduction) due to 4th best for possession%
Compare to Newcastle: best (!) attack per minute in possession but distinctly mediocre possession% and defence, only good enough for 7th.
This is correct. The way Arteta and Pep use inverted fullbacks (inverting into the pivot, mainly as a defensive tactic & for ball progression) is very different to the way Ange does (both fullbacks moving inside into the channel and often providing a passing option behind the lines, mainly for attacking purposes).I think inverted fullbacks can have two meanings. The first is as
The first is a defensive tactic, the second an offensive (bias) tactic designed to help you play through a press and overload midfield/attack.
Jury's out on whether the latter is a viable tactic in this league, leave us too open defensively if you ask me.
Line-Breaking Passes to Progressive Actions in the Bundesliga
How often do Bundesliga teams chain a line-breaking pass with another progressive action? Do certain teams stand out? We analysed the 2023...
statsbomb.com
Ok bored with the TW so I've been doing some stats scraping and combinatorics...
So who were our talisman players in 2023/24?
I looked at how many minutes each player played, and how many goals the team scored and conceded during that time, and then worked out goal difference per 90 minutes played. If we ignore players with less than 500 minutes played, our top 5 were:
I won't post the bottom end of the list cos that would encourage a pile-on of TFC negativity. Suffice to say that 5 of the bottom 7 have been moved on or are at least in the departure lounge.
Our best defensive talisman was Richarlison (team conceded 1.08 goals against per 90 when he was on the pitch), followed by Sarr (1.17), Maddison (1.29), Romero (1.35) and van de Ven (1.46).
Our best goal-scoring talisman was also Richarlison (we scored 2.23 goals per 90 when he was on the pitch), followed by Hojbjerg (2.17), Johnson (2.11), Udogie (2.01) and Davies (2.07).
If you extrapolate Richarlison's numbers to 38 matches, that's a for & against of 85-41 which would have had us finishing 3rd or thereabouts. To the extent that Solanke brings more of what Richarlison brings in that 9 role, it looks like a great recruiting option.
In terms of who we missed the most when they weren't on the pitch, it was Romero. In the 627 or so minutes that he was missing, we conceded 19 goals and scored 11, equivalent to conceding 2.73 per 90 and scoring 1.58. Followed by Richarlison, Udogie, Maddison and Sarr.
Our best (luckiest?) combinations of outfield players in terms of goal difference were:
So who were our talisman players in 2023/24?
I looked at how many minutes each player played, and how many goals the team scored and conceded during that time, and then worked out goal difference per 90 minutes played. If we ignore players with less than 500 minutes played, our top 5 were:
- Richarlison played 1493 minutes; we scored 37 and conceded 18 in that time. Per 90 minutes that's 2.23 for, 1.08 against, -> +1.15 goal difference per 90
- Romero: 63 for, 42 against in 2793 minutes, ie 2.03 for, 1.35 against per 90 = +0.68 gd per 90
- Maddison 1.92 - 1.29 = +0.63
- Udogie 2.10 - 1.50 = +0.60
- Sarr 1.73 - 1.17 = +0.56
I won't post the bottom end of the list cos that would encourage a pile-on of TFC negativity. Suffice to say that 5 of the bottom 7 have been moved on or are at least in the departure lounge.
Our best defensive talisman was Richarlison (team conceded 1.08 goals against per 90 when he was on the pitch), followed by Sarr (1.17), Maddison (1.29), Romero (1.35) and van de Ven (1.46).
Our best goal-scoring talisman was also Richarlison (we scored 2.23 goals per 90 when he was on the pitch), followed by Hojbjerg (2.17), Johnson (2.11), Udogie (2.01) and Davies (2.07).
If you extrapolate Richarlison's numbers to 38 matches, that's a for & against of 85-41 which would have had us finishing 3rd or thereabouts. To the extent that Solanke brings more of what Richarlison brings in that 9 role, it looks like a great recruiting option.
In terms of who we missed the most when they weren't on the pitch, it was Romero. In the 627 or so minutes that he was missing, we conceded 19 goals and scored 11, equivalent to conceding 2.73 per 90 and scoring 1.58. Followed by Richarlison, Udogie, Maddison and Sarr.
Our best (luckiest?) combinations of outfield players in terms of goal difference were:
- Two Players: Richarlison + Johnson (3.07 for, 1.15 against)
- Three players: Romero + Richarlison + Johnson (3.36 for, 1.01 against)
- Four players: Van de Ven + Porro + Richarlison + Son (1.82 for, 0.33 against)
- Five players: Romero + Porro + Sarr + Son + Richarlison (2.07 - 0.26)
- Six players: Romero + Porro + Sarr + Son + Richarlison + Kulusevski (2.04-0.27)
Last edited: