it would be interesting to analyse the number of big chances and our big chances taken in games we have won and games we have not won to explain our large goal difference. It might sound obvious but there does "feel" like there are certain teams that play a certain way where we struggle to score and then leave ourselves open to a sucker punch. We can smash 4 past city but lose to Palace etc. As much as our injuries have made our defence worse have they made our attack worse or do we just have problems scoring against teams that play a certain way. Would we rather win 1 - nil against city but actually beat Ipswich, is there something in Ange's style or whatever that cannot play against low block or is it just lack of personnel?
I think our injuries have definitely made our attack worse, by essentially breaking our build-up. The injuries to the front line also hurt both our defense and attack, because our pressing is key to both and a generator of many attacking chances as well as a way to stifle opposing attacks. Re. breaking down a low block, I still don't have a sense if it's actually true that we create lower xG against a low block (it certainly seems that way, but I don't like to take such things at face value; Palace pressed us high and stifled us, for example, while West Ham tended to sit deeper and we smashed them). But perhaps more importantly, I do think it's a personnel issue. Low blocks are notoriously difficult for every team--it's one of those 'hardest things to do in football'--but the most successful way of breaking one down is by having players who can create their own space and opportunities on the dribble. Odobert was supposed to be a step in the direction of plugging that personnel gap. I still think we need 1-2 additional wide profiles who are 1v1 dribblers who can go either way and play either side, think Doku, Savinho, Semenyo, etc.
On the athletic football pod they discussed how Spurs keepers this season play long balls 5% of the time. The next team is at 40%. The reason this is important is predictability. Teams trying to press us do so with confidence because we never play it over their heads. It allows them to push their midfielders up higher. If we played just a bit more long balls and made them worry that we'll win one and have them need to track back to stop us, it would open up more space for us to work.
I paraphrased all of that but thought that it was interesting.
It will be become tedious if I comment “the prof does it again!” on every post so please assume the comment until I comment otherwise.
I appreciate the kind words in any case!
Excellent! This is the kind of definitive analysis any sports field would benefit from no fence sitting. Conclusion backed by data!
( It be time to expand from just Spurs and entertain other sports Doc. Probably more lucrative).
Thanks! Might get more into the Premier League in general, but to be honest most of my motivation is just talking about Spurs!
it would be interesting to analyse the number of big chances and our big chances taken in games we have won and games we have not won to explain our large goal difference. It might sound obvious but there does "feel" like there are certain teams that play a certain way where we struggle to score and then leave ourselves open to a sucker punch. We can smash 4 past city but lose to Palace etc. As much as our injuries have made our defence worse have they made our attack worse or do we just have problems scoring against teams that play a certain way. Would we rather win 1 - nil against city but actually beat Ipswich, is there something in Ange's style or whatever that cannot play against low block or is it just lack of personnel?
I think our injuries have definitely made our attack worse, by essentially breaking our build-up. The injuries to the front line also hurt both our defense and attack, because our pressing is key to both and a generator of many attacking chances as well as a way to stifle opposing attacks. Re. breaking down a low block, I still don't have a sense if it's actually true that we create lower xG against a low block (it certainly seems that way, but I don't like to take such things at face value; Palace pressed us high and stifled us, for example, while West Ham tended to sit deeper and we smashed them). But perhaps more importantly, I do think it's a personnel issue. Low blocks are notoriously difficult for every team--it's one of those 'hardest things to do in football'--but the most successful way of breaking one down is by having players who can create their own space and opportunities on the dribble. Odobert was supposed to be a step in the direction of plugging that personnel gap. I still think we need 1-2 additional wide profiles who are 1v1 dribblers who can go either way and play either side, think Doku, Savinho, Semenyo, etc.
Such great insight, yet again! Thanks, Prof!
Thank you! I really appreciate it!
On the athletic football pod they discussed how Spurs keepers this season play long balls 5% of the time. The next team is at 40%. The reason this is important is predictability. Teams trying to press us do so with confidence because we never play it over their heads. It allows them to push their midfielders up higher. If we played just a bit more long balls and made them worry that we'll win one and have them need to track back to stop us, it would open up more space for us to work.
I paraphrased all of that but thought that it was interesting.
I've taken a look at our long passing throughout the course of the season and found that we actually *are* increasing our long passing. Data in this piece: https://profspur.substack.com/p/how-anges-spurs-outmaneuvered-slots