• 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

I have no issue with going until the end, I'd love us to. I hate it when teams sit back on a lead. But if you have to put 5 sets of fresh legs and lungs on to achieve that then you fucking do it. Couldn't give a shit if it isn't pure or whatever his thinking is. Training is for fitness/stamina not matches. Matches are for hardness/sharpness. For me his words in the press conference were utterly ridiculous, and making the subs shouldn't contradict what I've heard (and now read) of his philosophy.

I can understand what he's saying, that basically these players have let themselves down in that half, so they can deal with it and let's see if their mentality changes, see if they like that feeling. If the subs come on and save them, it gives the rest of the players license to work less hard and expect to be saved once their heads drop.

But I am like you. I would much rather have seen the subs early, tried to rescue the game and then blast the players after. But hey, we could win our next four and this game becomes a fart in the wind, no one remembers it and some will say it was a catalyst.

I just hate that it was before it was an international break.
 
It's not the mystery you seem to think, only you are obsessed with the micro of tactics like many modern football fans. Its why you lapse so readily in to jargon like double pivot... News flash players make errors because they are human. Our 'tactics' how the side is being coached to approach the game, how we set the side up, the philosophy of the way we play the game heedless of game management of near any kind IS MAKING THESE kinds of errors catastrophic. Think macro.

It's not even confusing mate, the way Ange is asking his team to play tactically encourages the hugely open "entertaining" game we saw against Brighton. It's baked in and Ange PUBLICALY seems fine with this ( I admire him I also think it's foolhardy) a double pivot wouldn't change this.

We can argue semantics if you like philosophy verses tactics or ethos. But the substantive issue is how we want to play makes the inevitable Romero Udogie error MORE costly. Look at it this way oponents like Brighton didn't get dispirited against us because if I'm their coach I tell them it's fine they WILL give up chances hang in there. I saw it at United they actually had chances to unpick us like Brighton and they are terrible.

I get the formation board and tatico chat is fun, and makes us feel clever, I can mix in a little halfspace talk with the best of them but trust me none of that fixes us. Your focusing on the wrong end of the telescope.
Nice word salad. I'm still none the wiser as to how we set up caused Udogie and Romero to make a series of individual errors?

These are the same errors we saw made under our previous 3 managers who all set us up in a low block.

I mean I get you if you want to complain about the high line and high-press game style - or the inverted full backs - but none of those were the reason we coughed up these specific goals (they are the reason we coughed up OTHER goals in OTHER games but... whatever)

Not saying there isn't a problem - just not sure why you're pretending this specific case illustrates some other wider point when it clearly doesn't. 🤷‍♂️
 
Nice word salad. I'm still none the wiser as to how we set up caused Udogie and Romero to make a series of individual errors?

These are the same errors we saw made under our previous 3 managers who all set us up in a low block.

I mean I get you if you want to complain about the high line and high-press game style - or the inverted full backs - but none of those were the reason we coughed up these specific goals (they are the reason we coughed up OTHER goals in OTHER games but... whatever)

Not saying there isn't a problem - just not sure why you're pretending this specific case illustrates some other wider point when it clearly doesn't. 🤷‍♂️
When people use clichés like word salad it just a mask for their own lack comprehension. YOU were the person that tried to boil down a wider point to a facile point about player error. I've explained to you why the tactical set up puts those errors at a premium. If you want to try and re-read the 'word salad' you might come to understand there's a broader more substantive issue than player error at work. Or just shrug and stick in an emoji that works too. Lol
 
Simply wrong.

(1)
Spurs 3 : 1 Brentford

xThreat: 1.63 - 0.87
xG: 3.49 - 0.74

So, xG much higher than xThreat in that one.

(2)
Spurs 3 : 0 Qarabag FK

xG: 1.5 - 2.01
xThreat: 0.92 - 1.69

xG much higher than xThreat in that one.

(3)
Newcastle 2 : 1 Spurs

xG: 1.55 - 1.6
xThreat: 1.37 - 1.26

Again, xG higher than xThreat.

(4)
Leicester 1 : 1 Spurs

xG: 0.95 - 1.43
xThreat: 1.01 - 2.87

On that one xT higher than xG.

(5)
Spurs 4 : 0 Everton

xG: 2.18 - 0.74
xThreat: 1.76 - 1.8

Back to xG being higher than xThreat.

(6)
Spurs 0 : 1 Woolwich

xG: 0.65 - 1.06
xThreat: 1.52 - 1.11

xThreat higher on that one.

(7)
Man Utd 0 : 3 Spurs

xG: 0.62 - 4.39
xThreat: 1.1 - 1.97

xG much higher than xThreat.

(8)
Brighton 3 : 2 Spurs

xG: 2.46 - 1.01
xThreat: 1.17 - 1.28

xThreat marginally higher than xG.

----

So from the 8 games I could find data on, 5 the xG was higher than the xThreat, and three the xThreat was higher than the xG. Pretty mixed bag. Certainly doesn't support the narrative though that we're not creating xG from good xT.

Good work, fair point, but still not quite countering what I am saying which is why I talked about not just xthreat, but about things like actual threat, possession and touches in dangerous areas/opponents box etc.

Xthreat isn’t a particularly qualititive metric like XG and XA in that all it does (I believe) is divide the pitch into zones and count times the ball is moved from particular zones to more threatening zones.

But I am guilty of using xthreat to help make a point as well, when I probably shouldn’t have, as it isn’t qualitative.

I’m going to dig and see if there is a metric which applies values in build up. Maybe Xchain or something.
 
Last edited:
When people use clichés like word salad it just a mask for their own lack comprehension. YOU were the person that tried to boil down a wider point to a facile point about player error. I've explained to you why the tactical set up puts those errors at a premium. If you want to try and re-read the 'word salad' you might come to understand there's a broader more substantive issue than player error at work. Or just shrug and stick in an emoji that works too. Lol

It would have been easier just to write "I'm not talking about these specific errors but a broader issue".

And I might have agreed.

But you're being a pompous arse. So... Good luck with that.
 
It would have been easier just to write "I'm not talking about these specific errors but a broader issue".

And I might have agreed.

But you're being a pompous arse. So... Good luck with that.
You're just thick. Enjoy 😉 And I actually did you the courtesy of bothering to answer your question with diligence, as opposed to a generic non- answer, you apparently craved...Lol. Can't help some folk. It's the 'tactical autopsy ' thread, and you are complaining that some took your question seriously Ffs.
 
Last edited:

But the drop off against Brighton was immediately after half time, after they've just had a 15 minute breather. And we're still only in the 3rd month of the season, and most of these players are only playing 1 game per week. I'm not sure the drop off can be adequately explained by fatigue yet.

My theory, at least for yesterday, is our press was getting repeatedly played around by Brighton - they were outnumbering us in their first third - and so naturally the front players lost motivation to press. The problem was we either didn't commit as a team, nor did we drop as a team; as seen in Brighton's first goal, Solanke is still under the impression the MO is to press high, but he's not joined by any of the attackers who've dropped into a passive midblock.

Mishmash tactics, no coordination, leads to the ball easily finding it's way out to Mitoma, and before you know it they're in behind and it's 1-2. Rinse and repeat for their second.
 
But the drop off against Brighton was immediately after half time, after they've just had a 15 minute breather. And we're still only in the 3rd month of the season, and most of these players are only playing 1 game per week. I'm not sure the drop off can be adequately explained by fatigue yet.

My theory, at least for yesterday, is our press was getting repeatedly played around by Brighton - they were outnumbering us in their first third - and so naturally the front players lost motivation to press. The problem was we either didn't commit as a team, nor did we drop as a team; as seen in Brighton's first goal, Solanke is still under the impression the MO is to press high, but he's not joined by any of the attackers who've dropped into a passive midblock.

Mishmash tactics, no coordination, leads to the ball easily finding it's way out to Mitoma, and before you know it they're in behind and it's 1-2. Rinse and repeat for their second.

I don't disagree with much of that and have said similar, I'm just not sure it's all a "tactics" problem, I don't necessarily think Ange would have expected or wanted us to do what we did from minute 46. I'm sure what happened from HT - 66min was partly on players, either fatigue or just switching off, Brighton just coming out shit or bust - let's not ignore that they took a big gamble too wit their tactics both halves and got pinned for it for 45 minutes. Or a combination of all/any of those.

I also wasn't impressed by Ange's in game managed at Utd and likewise wasn't impressed on Sunday (in fact I've rarely been impressed by his tactical subs). His failure to react in both games with tactical subs quick enough and then the changes on Sunday were slightly counter intuitive - or at least one was.
 
I also wasn't impressed by Ange's in game managed at Utd and likewise wasn't impressed on Sunday (in fact I've rarely been impressed by his tactical subs). His failure to react in both games with tactical subs quick enough and then the changes on Sunday were slightly counter intuitive - or at least one was.
Agree. The United subs paid off but I felt that was mainly due to us scoring immediately from that corner. I'm still not convinced in the logic of bringing on both Bergvall and Moore when United had the wind in their sails. I also wonder, had Bruno not got that red, whether we could have easily seen another Brighton-esque collapse. I'm never feeling safe with a lead with this team, especially not away from home.

As for his subs on Sunday, I mean when are they not counter intuitive? Bissouma and Sarr on '78, when in dire need of a goal? Excuse me? Partly though that's the problem when you start two number #10's in midfield - (1) you run the risk of getting outfought in the middle, & (2) when you're in need of a goal there's nobody to bring on to fresh things up.
 
Agree. The United subs paid off but I felt that was mainly due to us scoring immediately from that corner. I'm still not convinced in the logic of bringing on both Bergvall and Moore when United had the wind in their sails. I also wonder, had Bruno not got that red, whether we could have easily seen another Brighton-esque collapse. I'm never feeling safe with a lead with this team, especially not away from home.

As for his subs on Sunday, I mean when are they not counter intuitive? Bissouma and Sarr on '78, when in dire need of a goal? Excuse me? Partly though that's the problem when you start two number #10's in midfield - (1) you run the risk of getting outfought in the middle, & (2) when you're in need of a goal there's nobody to bring on to fresh things up.

The Utd subs were good tactically, but about 10-15 minutes later than they should have been made. Made earlier, they would have served the same tactical purpose, sooner, but also disrupted Utd’s little burst of momentum.

Bentancur was struggling with Brighton’s press throughout the first half, Bissouma is not only press resistant, but much more athletic and mobile. Bissouma should have either started or at least come on at ht. Likewise Kulusevski off for Sarr should have happened sooner too. Or Sarr/Johnson and move Kulusevski to RF as per often.

Bissouma and Sarr would have been great subs at HT to sure up a 2-0 lead without loads of compromise.
 
Bissouma is not only press resistant, but much more athletic and mobile. Bissouma should have either started or at least come on at ht.
He is, but he's also a headless chicken, good for a few brainfarts every game. Point taken about Bentancur's lack of press resistance hurting us in this one, but the prospect of Bissouma replacing him doesn't fill me with much glee either.

I keep banging on about this but for me the solution is to adjust the formation to a double pivot - we don't have one reliable #6 that can do all the jobs of a single pivot on his own. Biss AND Bentancur could have been a viable pairing (or Benta and Gray, Biss and Sarr, take your pick).

But then that would require actual attacking patterns of play from our forwards/wingers to create chances, rather than just shoving everyone forward in a kamikaze formation and hoping for the best.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top