Tottenham Hotstats

  • 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!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

I agree with Mick Cooper Mick Cooper in the match thread, this was a repeat of the Newcastle game (apart from the score line).
We huffed and we puffed but the Chang Gang hanged tough.....
Once again we lacked penetration and, apart from Alli's moment of glory, spent most of the time taking potshots from outside the box...
5UuRFn4.png
(that's us on the right)
q3Idz2A.jpg

4wn0Rhh.jpg

At the moment Alli is looking more like a striker than HK...
GWdKtT9.jpg

which leaves us without a creative central MF assuming that Poch prefers Eriksen & Lamela to play wide.
Carroll is not the answer (at least not at the moment).
Striker + Rabiot SVP Poch.
p.s. what's happened with Bentaleb?...has he spoken out of turn and is now being punished?
 
p.s. what's happened with Bentaleb?...has he spoken out of turn and is now being punished?
Presumably he's not earned his place back in the team since his injury. Fair play to Poch for giving Carroll a chance in his absence and not immediately displacing him once injured players returned.
 
which leaves us without a creative central MF assuming that Poch prefers Eriksen & Lamela to play wide.

They don't play wide. They start wide. If you say "play" do so mainly centrally.

Is your solution to solve not having shots in the box really - with two players already cutting in from the flanks - to add a AMC....while having that AMC replace a guy making runs into the box?
 
They don't play wide. They start wide. If you say "play" do so mainly centrally.

Is your solution to solve not having shots in the box really - with two players already cutting in from the flanks - to add a AMC....while having that AMC replace a guy making runs into the box?
No no no....
I prefer that Alli plays behind our designated striker. At the moment it appears, to me at least, that those roles are becoming confused.
Don't you think the need for an out & out striker is becoming more & more obvious with each game?
Rabiot is primarily a HMF player but has the ability to play a more forward role if required.
p.s. one salient stat I forgot to mention above...
We made 203 passes in the attacking third yesterday, the highest total so far this season. The previous high of 170 strangely enough was against Newcastle!
I would be concerned that, given the amount of work players are putting into games, the lack of reward may begin to have a negative effect on them.
 
We don't play with an out-and-out striker in Pochettino's system, and he's not about to suddenly change that off the back of some unfortunate results. There were 3 very good passes that either no one made the run for, or an Everton defender just cut out, that would have led to a clear goal scoring chance.

I think we suffered slightly in terms of penetration and shooting, but another striker isn't really going to solve that. Either Lamela, Son or Alli making more runs and shooting more will. Some days that just may not be possible.

The lack of reward in terms of our conversion % of our shots is frustrating, but at some point, it will heat up, and when it does, it could enable us to really consolidate our contender credentials.
 
No no no....
I prefer that Alli plays behind our designated striker. At the moment it appears, to me at least, that those roles are becoming confused.
Don't you think the need for an out & out striker is becoming more & more obvious with each game?
Rabiot is primarily a HMF player but has the ability to play a more forward role if required.
p.s. one salient stat I forgot to mention above...
We made 203 passes in the attacking third yesterday, the highest total so far this season. The previous high of 170 strangely enough was against Newcastle!
I would be concerned that, given the amount of work players are putting into games, the lack of reward may begin to have a negative effect on them.

Fair enough on Alli. Misunderstood.

But I don't think the situation calls for an out and out striker. What I do think is, that Poch's system is somewhat complex. It takes intelligent and dedicated players. What we're seeing both in real-time and, to keep it thread-related, in the numbers afterwards is that we're getting there. The defensive part is pretty much set (but then defence has always been easier to learn to learn than attacking) and any number showing a lot of successfull passes in the attacking third is a positive, as long as we're slowly getting there in terms of keeping the number reflecting a good forward pass and completion percentage also, as well as increasing the number of (good) chances created. Kind of like the final 20 yards in American football is dubbed the red zone, it's always going to be more difficult and congested the closer we get to the opposition goal. What we're lacking is the final understanding in intermovement and mostly who fills in when certain players like Kane vacate an area, especially getting people in the right positions in the box and making the right runs to receive vertical passes. We're getting closer is my impression.
 
We don't play with an out-and-out striker in Pochettino's system, and he's not about to suddenly change that off the back of some unfortunate results. There were 3 very good passes that either no one made the run for, or an Everton defender just cut out, that would have led to a clear goal scoring chance.

I think we suffered slightly in terms of penetration and shooting, but another striker isn't really going to solve that. Either Lamela, Son or Alli making more runs and shooting more will. Some days that just may not be possible.

The lack of reward in terms of our conversion % of our shots is frustrating, but at some point, it will heat up, and when it does, it could enable us to really consolidate our contender credentials.
Sorry Jsus I'm not a fully paid-up member of the popular theory 'anyone of the front four can score'.
Rotating (during a game) the attacking players is fine from the point of view of disruption but one of those four has to engage the opposition centre-back(s).
 
Sorry Jsus I'm not a fully paid-up member of the popular theory 'anyone of the front four can score'.
Rotating (during a game) the attacking players is fine from the point of view of disruption but one of those four has to engage the opposition centre-back(s).
Yes, but the point of Pochettino's system is that it could be Kane, Alli, Lamela or any combination of the above. He wants multiple guys doing that to create more chaos/space around the opposition box. Harry is the main guy for this, and anyone playing up top will have a similar role, but that isn't a normal striker role. You have to drop deep, go wide, attack the box, playmake and press from the front. It's basically peak Totti on amphetamines.
 
Sorry Jsus I'm not a fully paid-up member of the popular theory 'anyone of the front four can score'.
Rotating (during a game) the attacking players is fine from the point of view of disruption but one of those four has to engage the opposition centre-back(s).

The thing to remember is that Poch to some degree subscribes to Bielsa's defensive principle of two CBs when facing one striker, and three CBs when facing two. My guess would be that this is reflected in how he views attacking play as well. Obviously you can create chances and score goals with one strikers up against two CBs, but to optimize more is needed. Engaging CBs in Poch's mind is, and I'm still guessing on what I see I should stress, having them always needing to decide whether they should go with the striker dropping off or stay, whether they need to push up on the winger coming in from flank or stay etc. As oppossed to the Duncan Ferguson way of enganging.
 
So I guess the question is, 'Is it working, given the amount of possession we are generating?'
From my perspective what should be happening up front is not vastly different to a 5 a side game, plenty of movement off the ball, players rotating positionally and,
most importantly, a pivotal player for the other three to play off.
I don't believe I'm seeing that pivotal role at the moment (it can be any of the four as the situation demands).
 
So I guess the question is, 'Is it working, given the amount of possession we are generating?'
From my perspective what should be happening up front is not vastly different to a 5 a side game, plenty of movement off the ball, players rotating positionally and,
most importantly, a pivotal player for the other three to play off.
I don't believe I'm seeing that pivotal role at the moment (it can be any of the four as the situation demands).
Yes, in established possession situations, it can seem like that, although I think the idea is to circulate until you can find a guy in space to pass to the runner (often a ball to Eriksen or Lamela in a half space, then a pass into the box). Most of our goals though have been quick strikes where we turn the ball over and burst forward with it being more of an opportunity thing than a design thing (like Kane's goal against Southampton, or Lamela's against Watford).

At least, that's how it has seemed to me. Although we get a lot of possession, we're also one of the more direct teams in terms of how few passes/touches we take prior to the shot, so we're kind of neither the Woolwich-style fish, nor the Leicester-style fowl.
 
Excerpt from Juicy's post above:

"A huge aspect of Tottenham’s season isn’t just how well they have been playing and how good their numbers look, but how different it looks from the chaos of last season. Throughout last season they were a 52% shots team with a slightly lower on target rate. Par stuff that maintained across each half of the season. Based on any analysis, it looked like major challenges were ahead, but with a mass clear out and what now looks like a well bonded and youthful squad, Tottenham have recorded a huge leap in their underlying numbers with a particular focus on their on target rates. The good part here (volume) lands in the realm of strong sustainable quality but there’s a side order of caution alongside (rates). Let’s take a look.

Their overall shot ratio has increased from 52% to 57%, which is impressive in itself but their shot on target ratio has gone from 50% to 66%, a huge increase. Teams posting rates that high, in fact everyone posting 64% and above, have gone on to qualify for a top four slot on 10/10 occasions since 2009-10 and understandably, the components reflect well too. Tottenham’s “For” rate ranks 10th/140 and their “Against” rate 11th/140. There has been some debate around where Tottenham’s true rate lies, and the most likely answer appears to be somewhere in between, but towards which end may well determine whether they are hovering around third or fourth or pushing for more.

Where further caution comes in is in the rate in which all their shots are landing on target. Tottenham’s all shot numbers are fine, good but not spectacular, and the divergence between these and those on target is revealing. Over 42% of Tottenham’s shots have landed on target, a full 2% higher than any other team in the sample and the difference in this rate and that of their opposition’s rate (29%, so a full 13 percentage points) is significantly higher than the previous highest: ten percentage points. As such, there is a huge likelihood that Tottenham’s rate will revert as the season wears on, but it is worth noting that often when a metric such as this skews so positively, it’s reversion will likely still maintain it at a high rate.

This advantage Tottenham are enjoying may reduce but should not disappear. Indeed it is more likely that any skepticism borne of noting such positive skews is likely only to see effect longer term, and depending on how these metrics tally come season’s end, 2016-17 may well be a more interesting test of the “new” Tottenham’s true ability. Often it takes a long time for these things to shake out. Chelsea 2014-15 are the prime example here. The positive skew they enjoyed prior to Christmas was enough to give them a basis for league victory and the some of the reversion that took place over the second half of the season was predictable, that they cut the cord on the bungee this year was a step well beyond and envisaged by none.

Regardless, this is strong team within this league and the foundations have been laid for long term prosperity, something that looked to be a year or more away back in August."

IMO shots on target should be expected to mean revert less than goal scoring conversion. There are fewer variables involved working against it, as opposed to goal scoring which by definition only builds on those same variables.

At the end of the day, we're creating strong goal scoring opportunities, and that's primarily based on the level of play that we can sustain. A good example of this would be yesterday. We hit the fucking bar twice! Neither of those then could technically be written down as a shot on target, but sweet jesus we're talking about the difference of an inch, here!

We could start taking more shots, in which case I do think we'd see some mean reversion, because specifically that would mean that we are being less choosy and disciplined in our shot taking.
 
Excerpt from Juicy's post above:

"A huge aspect of Tottenham’s season isn’t just how well they have been playing and how good their numbers look, but how different it looks from the chaos of last season. Throughout last season they were a 52% shots team with a slightly lower on target rate. Par stuff that maintained across each half of the season. Based on any analysis, it looked like major challenges were ahead, but with a mass clear out and what now looks like a well bonded and youthful squad, Tottenham have recorded a huge leap in their underlying numbers with a particular focus on their on target rates. The good part here (volume) lands in the realm of strong sustainable quality but there’s a side order of caution alongside (rates). Let’s take a look.

Their overall shot ratio has increased from 52% to 57%, which is impressive in itself but their shot on target ratio has gone from 50% to 66%, a huge increase. Teams posting rates that high, in fact everyone posting 64% and above, have gone on to qualify for a top four slot on 10/10 occasions since 2009-10 and understandably, the components reflect well too. Tottenham’s “For” rate ranks 10th/140 and their “Against” rate 11th/140. There has been some debate around where Tottenham’s true rate lies, and the most likely answer appears to be somewhere in between, but towards which end may well determine whether they are hovering around third or fourth or pushing for more.

Where further caution comes in is in the rate in which all their shots are landing on target. Tottenham’s all shot numbers are fine, good but not spectacular, and the divergence between these and those on target is revealing. Over 42% of Tottenham’s shots have landed on target, a full 2% higher than any other team in the sample and the difference in this rate and that of their opposition’s rate (29%, so a full 13 percentage points) is significantly higher than the previous highest: ten percentage points. As such, there is a huge likelihood that Tottenham’s rate will revert as the season wears on, but it is worth noting that often when a metric such as this skews so positively, it’s reversion will likely still maintain it at a high rate.

This advantage Tottenham are enjoying may reduce but should not disappear. Indeed it is more likely that any skepticism borne of noting such positive skews is likely only to see effect longer term, and depending on how these metrics tally come season’s end, 2016-17 may well be a more interesting test of the “new” Tottenham’s true ability. Often it takes a long time for these things to shake out. Chelsea 2014-15 are the prime example here. The positive skew they enjoyed prior to Christmas was enough to give them a basis for league victory and the some of the reversion that took place over the second half of the season was predictable, that they cut the cord on the bungee this year was a step well beyond and envisaged by none.

Regardless, this is strong team within this league and the foundations have been laid for long term prosperity, something that looked to be a year or more away back in August."

IMO shots on target should be expected to mean revert less than goal scoring conversion. There are fewer variables involved working against it, as opposed to goal scoring which by definition only builds on those same variables.

At the end of the day, we're creating strong goal scoring opportunities, and that's primarily based on the level of play that we can sustain. A good example of this would be yesterday. We hit the fucking bar twice! Neither of those then could technically be written down as a shot on target, but sweet jesus we're talking about the difference of an inch, here!

We could start taking more shots, in which case I do think we'd see some mean reversion, because specifically that would mean that we are being less choosy and disciplined in our shot taking.
On the other hand, our conversion rate, despite our sharp-shooter-like ability to get shots on target, is actually below mean (as it is for City and Woolwich). If we started to heat up on the conversion side, even as our shots on target ratio came back down to a more sustainable number, it could balance out.

I guess we've got the next 18 games to find out.
 
On the other hand, our conversion rate, despite our sharp-shooter-like ability to get shots on target, is actually below mean (as it is for City and Woolwich). If we started to heat up on the conversion side, even as our shots on target ratio came back down to a more sustainable number, it could balance out.

I guess we've got the next 18 games to find out.
I think that's a little unclear, actually.

Like I said above, the more shots you take, the lower you'd expect shots on target. It's not just a matter of reversion to the mean, it's a fundamental choice between shot quality and volume, and there's a lot of overlap between the two making it unclear a lot of the time which is actually at play. With fewer shots on target, we'd also expect lower shot conversion.

I think our shooting at the moment is sustainable, but we'd be likelier to pick up an extra win here or there if we had a little bit more freedom firing at goal.
 
Here's a further analysis of Sunday's game and specifically of our front four players.
I have used this article from 'The Inside Channel' as the basis...
The Movement of Strikers in Mauricio Pochettino's Tactics
and, in particular, the sections
Pochettino needs two passers in the front four and Pochettino needs two vertical runners who finish well in front of goal.
Here's Eriksen's passing stats from FourFourTwo. Nothing wrong with his performance, lateral and wide passing and getting back to
perform his defensive duties, 85% success rate. Note however that his three passes into the box failed to reach their target.
dmmbwEL.jpg

and Lamela's whose pattern was dominated by the inside lateral pass except for the four into the box, which, like Eriksen's failed to
reach their intended target.
vw9Qwg6.jpg

Alli's received passes...got through alot of work, especially getting wide to spread the play but, more importantly successfully receiving 6
passes in the box.
asQcMO4.jpg

Lastly Harry's received passes. Like Alli getting wide to spread the play but mostly receiving passes in midfield and only one successful pass
received in the box.
Do2pG2S.jpg

OBSERVATIONS.
Firstly, the pattern of play is pretty much what 'The Inside Channel' article would have predicted so no real change in Poch's tactics except......
Why did Lamela spend so much time on the LW when maybe he should have rotated onto the right especially when Eriksen was over on the left ?
Was that a deliberate attempt to pressure the left side of Everton's defense or did swapping the positions of our two front passers upset the
balance of play. We know that both players failed to make a successful pass into the box so the 7 (successful) passes that Alli & Kane received in the box came from elsewhere.
Secondly, is HK running out of juice? Based on passes received his work-rate on Sunday was considerably less than Alli's so why did Poch take Alli off and leave
Kane on? I'm not going post more images but Alli made 29 passes in the att. 3rd, HK 11!
CONCLUSION.
Maybe Poch has to stand up and take responsability for Sunday's failure to win.....

 
Excerpt from Juicy's post above:

"A huge aspect of Tottenham’s season isn’t just how well they have been playing and how good their numbers look, but how different it looks from the chaos of last season. Throughout last season they were a 52% shots team with a slightly lower on target rate. Par stuff that maintained across each half of the season. Based on any analysis, it looked like major challenges were ahead, but with a mass clear out and what now looks like a well bonded and youthful squad, Tottenham have recorded a huge leap in their underlying numbers with a particular focus on their on target rates. The good part here (volume) lands in the realm of strong sustainable quality but there’s a side order of caution alongside (rates). Let’s take a look.

Their overall shot ratio has increased from 52% to 57%, which is impressive in itself but their shot on target ratio has gone from 50% to 66%, a huge increase. Teams posting rates that high, in fact everyone posting 64% and above, have gone on to qualify for a top four slot on 10/10 occasions since 2009-10 and understandably, the components reflect well too. Tottenham’s “For” rate ranks 10th/140 and their “Against” rate 11th/140. There has been some debate around where Tottenham’s true rate lies, and the most likely answer appears to be somewhere in between, but towards which end may well determine whether they are hovering around third or fourth or pushing for more.

Where further caution comes in is in the rate in which all their shots are landing on target. Tottenham’s all shot numbers are fine, good but not spectacular, and the divergence between these and those on target is revealing. Over 42% of Tottenham’s shots have landed on target, a full 2% higher than any other team in the sample and the difference in this rate and that of their opposition’s rate (29%, so a full 13 percentage points) is significantly higher than the previous highest: ten percentage points. As such, there is a huge likelihood that Tottenham’s rate will revert as the season wears on, but it is worth noting that often when a metric such as this skews so positively, it’s reversion will likely still maintain it at a high rate.

This advantage Tottenham are enjoying may reduce but should not disappear. Indeed it is more likely that any skepticism borne of noting such positive skews is likely only to see effect longer term, and depending on how these metrics tally come season’s end, 2016-17 may well be a more interesting test of the “new” Tottenham’s true ability. Often it takes a long time for these things to shake out. Chelsea 2014-15 are the prime example here. The positive skew they enjoyed prior to Christmas was enough to give them a basis for league victory and the some of the reversion that took place over the second half of the season was predictable, that they cut the cord on the bungee this year was a step well beyond and envisaged by none.

Regardless, this is strong team within this league and the foundations have been laid for long term prosperity, something that looked to be a year or more away back in August."

IMO shots on target should be expected to mean revert less than goal scoring conversion. There are fewer variables involved working against it, as opposed to goal scoring which by definition only builds on those same variables.

At the end of the day, we're creating strong goal scoring opportunities, and that's primarily based on the level of play that we can sustain. A good example of this would be yesterday. We hit the fucking bar twice! Neither of those then could technically be written down as a shot on target, but sweet jesus we're talking about the difference of an inch, here!

We could start taking more shots, in which case I do think we'd see some mean reversion, because specifically that would mean that we are being less choosy and disciplined in our shot taking.
I may sound like an idiot (I fully admit that I don't understand all of these stats). But is it possible that we are significantly better at getting shots on target than other teams? I mean, Kane's got to take a large percentage of our shots. And if he's great at placing shots (which he is), isn't it possible we, as a team, would be exceptional at getting shots on target and there would be no reversion to the mean? In other words, it seems like one exceptional talent could make us an outlier.
 
I may sound like an idiot (I fully admit that I don't understand all of these stats). But is it possible that we are significantly better at getting shots on target than other teams? I mean, Kane's got to take a large percentage of our shots. And if he's great at placing shots (which he is), isn't it possible we, as a team, would be exceptional at getting shots on target and there would be no reversion to the mean? In other words, it seems like one exceptional talent could make us an outlier.

Someone - Juicy, I think - mentioned that the very best have a smaller edge in percentage than you'd think.

Don't recall if I originally saw the following piece because it got posted here, or if I stumbled upon it myself. It's more about conversion than shots on target, but it's along the lines.

Joining a superteam like Real Madrid and Barcelona doesn’t guarantee individual success
 
Someone - Juicy, I think - mentioned that the very best have a smaller edge in percentage than you'd think.

Don't recall if I originally saw the following piece because it got posted here, or if I stumbled upon it myself. It's more about conversion than shots on target, but it's along the lines.

Joining a superteam like Real Madrid and Barcelona doesn’t guarantee individual success
Thanks for posting that article. I like anything that says that I am NOT NECESSARILY an idiot.
:dude:
 
I may sound like an idiot (I fully admit that I don't understand all of these stats). But is it possible that we are significantly better at getting shots on target than other teams? I mean, Kane's got to take a large percentage of our shots. And if he's great at placing shots (which he is), isn't it possible we, as a team, would be exceptional at getting shots on target and there would be no reversion to the mean? In other words, it seems like one exceptional talent could make us an outlier.
Our 2012-13 season looked like that because of Bale's freakish long-range shooting. And Kane seems like he may be exceptionally accurate as a shooter. As does Eriksen, Alli and maybe Lamela.

It could partly be a squad thing, but we'll need a lot longer to see if that's the case. Right now, the sample size is too small to know, I think.
 
Back
Top Bottom