Even if they had the comprehension skills to understand this (which I doubt), most of them are too far gone down the Ange out rabbit hole to be reasonable about it.
They've absolutely nailed their flag to that mast and feel that they'd be opened up to ridicule if they compromised at all. It's infuriating that type of behaviour has found it's way into sports fandom but it's not at all surprising, given the political landscape in the modern world.
Very good read…. I keep saying once Romero and VDV are back this team can start getting results. They’re very key in this Ange system playing from the back and baiting the press. Ange is the right man for this job and you can tell his players are still wedded to this project despite bad results…..#AngeIn
Incredible analysis, presentation of data. Thank you. Refreshing to look at the “experiment” calmly, carefully instead of the knee-jerk reactions we get from some fans, commentators.
One can only hope that the board and club heirarchy are also using their data to come to the same conclusions. I fear sacking Ange and hiring somebody else just perpetuates the doom cycle, not to mention would require another squad overhaul to accomodate whatever tactics the new manager would want to implement (see: Amorim at ManU right now).
I do think a lost point of contention in January over the lack of signings is the real difficulty in bringing in quality players who will not only solve the short-term injury crisis but also build long-term stability for future team building. CB is clearly a major problem position currently, but if I was a CB being courted by Lange, I would look at Romero, VdV, Dragusin, and also Vuskovic coming in this summer and wonder about playing time in the long term.
The salary structure also plays a role (and yes, Levy is a cheapskate, which is a big part of the problem). For example, ManU is trying to land Dorgu from Lecce, a guy Spurs were supposedly courting. I would assume Dorgu joining Spurs would have split time at LB with Udogie, but Paratici brought in Udogie for 20m and Lecce is asking for 40m for Dorgu. Of course we need another LB, but if we sign one for 100% more and tell him he's going to split time with Udogie... is Dorgu going to accept that? Should Spurs pay 100% more for a second LB? What does that do to the summer transfer window budget, when we clearly are going to need to add at least one attacking wide player, hopefully another central playmaker, and possibly swap out Betancour and/or Bissouma for somebody who can protect the back line and link with the top more effectively and consistently than either of those two have done this year?
The entire recruitment process is so much more complex than people assume.
Don't get me wrong, Lange et al definitely dropped the ball last summer and didn't add sufficient squad depth for a run in four competitions. But the reality is that emergency fixes in the January window for an injury crisis is more complicated than just screaming, "Buy some players!"
I understand it's complicated, but this is one situation where loans are a good mechanism and make sense. The way I see it, conversations about getting the right players in on a more permanent basis are starting to feel like conversations about redecorating the living room while the house is on fire. I don't think we need to have a conversation with the interior designer, I think we need to call the fire department.
100%. I'm not totally letting Lange off the hook here, just arguing it's much more complicated than yelling "WE NEED PLAYERS!" (which, I recognize is not what you are doing, but what a lot of the fan base is doing).
Loans do have their own nuances. Players going on loan are typically either looking to (1) open an exit from their current situation (e.g., Werner), (2) looking to build experience to break through with their current team (e.g., Donley), or (3) are looking for game time on the expectation that a good performance will then translate into establishment in their actual club (e.g., Lo Celso for the past 3 years).
2s and a club like Spurs are a rare match... I suppose there are players from teams like Real and Barca (e.g., Ansu Fati) who might make sense (Fati's performance at Brighton last year would make me wary), but generally speaking a club the size of Spurs isn't an experience ground for those types. Even Evan Ferguson sounds doubtful about a Spurs loan because he knows Solanke is back in 5 weeks and that will cut into his match time and development.
1s and 3s exist, but are still not easy to find. Deki was a loan-to-buy, as was Cuti, but both were more or less always presumed to be eventual full transfers, so rumors about players like Dibbling right now (last I heard they were pushing loan-to-buy, and he's also only 18 so not necessarily immediate help) aren't true loans the way we usually think about them.
The reality of the situation is, as you accurately say, we need a fire department. Unfortunately, we also have a guy holding the purse who would rather prefer to find a way to put out the fire himself using pitchers of water from the tap.
After the Everton game I felt Levy needed to bite the bullet and pay a big transfer fee and salary to the likes of Vlahovic or Gyorkes (there are rumors floating around about Nico Williams but if Arsenal are sniffing too then we go back to the "which team would you rather join" problem). Until Levy decides to start acting like a buying club, though, I remain skeptical that a transfer like that will ever happen under this ownership.
I think it's definitely the case that a lack of squad depth is massively hurting us (and the club knew how many games we'd have in the summer and they abjectly failed to address it) but I think there's some stuff missing from this injury data though, namely: severity of injury, importance of the player to the team (i.e. are they are a starter?), and, crucially, previous injuries from players that are now back (e.g. this data misses out Son, Richy and Ben Davies). I also don't think it's "media narrative" that attributes the way we play to injury, Ange has literally said it himself.
I agree with the first point about how severity, duration, importance, etc. would help make the injury data more meaningful. I don't agree with the second about Ange causing injuries; he may be wrong, he may not even have systematically more injuries. No one has really investigated that, to my knowledge; they just keep repeating things out of context, hence media narrative.
We can quibble about the play style, but the biggest reason ange has contributed towards the injury crisis is his refusal to rotate until he has no other options. Udogie, Porro, Son, Solanke, etc. were all run into the ground and have seen massive dips in form, injuries or both. If Ange doesn’t believe the backups are good enough to occasionally relive the starters, then they should be loaned or sold. However, given how competent the backups have looked once integrated into the team, I’ve lost faith in ange’s ability to properly rate the talent available to him.
Nonetheless, good piece even if I don’t agree with all its conclusions.
Thanks for sharing. The article uses a two-match sample size to make that particular point so I hardly think it exonerates Ange and his rotation/substitution patterns. Up until December, Gray and Bergvall were only getting token appearances and they’ve been two of our better players since they were thrusted into the starting XI. Reguilon has at least looked competent in his limited minutes and ange’s refusal to rest Udogie until he was injured looks ever more confusing. Lankshear has hardly played at all and either needs to be deputizing for Dom or loaned out. Spence is the most baffling case of all, and even if the off-pitch rumblings are true, he’s been arguably spurs best player for going on two months now and his previous exclusion from the squad is looking more and more ridiculous. We can all agree that Ange doesn’t have enough to work with, but it’s impossible for me to believe that he couldn’t have managed this better.
If all the assumptions you're making about these players at all points in the season are true, then yes. But whereas you're not training with them every day, the manager is.
Personally I've been of the opinion that it's not possible to judge whether Postecoglou is good enough or not when so many first choice players are injured, but my opinion was that Postecoglou's approach was a major contributing factor as to why we had so many injuries in the first place. This article has assuaged my concerns in that regard to a point.
However, you've not really addressed his aversion to rotation, which perhaps could have prevented a number of injuries and prevented the players that aren't injured from being quite so exhausted now.
Spence being unused, despite a positive preseason, despite being a literal game changer in his cameo as early as the Colchester match, was not started at either full back position in the league until all other options (including van de Ven at LB) were exhausted. He's demonstrated he could have adequately been rotated with Udogie or Porro, now the former is out and the latter is clearly exhausted, possibly playing through injury too.
Starting Porro against Everton when there's literally no other option for Thursday was a poor choice (though of course squad building/planning is major issue here too).
Having said all that, I'm also not wedded to the Postecoglou experiment for non-statisical reasons, namely that I think he's aggy, petulant and rude and not half as progressively minded as he's been painted, but I admit that is wholly my subjective opinion.
Even before the Villa game, we had lost to Newcastle, Arsenal, Brighton and Palace, and drawn to Leicester, in our first 9 or so prem games. I can't recall off the top off my head if both Romero and VDV played in those games? If so, many argue that the cracks started to appear even before the injuries started from the Villa game onwards. I would agree that this would still be a small sample size, but there's a feeling that a certain style of team can win points from us even when we're fully fit under Ange.
And then to continue on our tactical fragilities. There's a question about whether we should be dropping so many points even with the injuries. Some of our starting 11's should be more than capable of picking up wins and draws against the opposition we've played. If it's true, as you show, that he's moved away from Ange-ball, it clearly isn't working.
So you wrote an entire dissertation to say that Ange can't do anything without 1 of the best CBs in the world and the fastest CB in the world? That's the argument?
Look who they beat last season...almost exclusively teams 10-20. That VdV/Romero pairing gave up 16 goals to NCU, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Wolves, City in the final stretch of the season
And that 10 game "new manager bounce" you mentioned? It was the same story as the rest of their season...Wins vs 10th-20th. Yes they beat United. The Liverpool win? Pool had 2 redcards and it was a 96th min Matip OG that gave Spurs the win.
Also, suggesting that a manager with new ideas, new methods, new voice, and most importantly, a very very unique tactic, is "new manager bounce" sounds ignorant. Every sport in the world involves things being put on tape and counter measures being taken. To shrug off teams figuring out that if you just sit back patiently, let spurs lose possession and then counter wide is foolish. It is a legitimate concern. Arsenal (1st match) vs our best XI sat back in a 442 like it was 1981. It is also why you see the poor results vs the bottom clubs this season as they play a more long ball approach. And that style should've had Liverpool putting up 10 goals.
This season look at the lineups that had those embarrassing results. Plenty of "data" before the injuries hit.
And it's very "glass half full" to say "other teams press with intensity and they dont have injuries!" I don't have a chart or a telescope, but it seems like common sense when your fullbacks are asked to tour de france every match and your 2 center halves are sprinting from the halfway line to stop wide counters all game...you're going to get some injuries. But hey, other teams work hard...so it's just a coincidence.
The bottom line is that Ange can get away with his style in a league that a lower quality or when he simply has better players. The worst teams in the Premier League are better than the top teams in any league he has coached in. [Celtic >> Soton? I'll give ya that one :) ]
I don't have a problem with anyone that is pro-ange. He says the right things, he is a club-first manager, he takes responsibility....but he IS out of his depth. He is a mid-table manager at best, and his consistent results against the top 10 vs the bottom 10 show this. Even in Europe... winless vs Ranger, Gala and Roma? But beat the teams we can't pronounce?
Do you hold Ange accountable for the injuries on Romero and VDV from that chelsea game? If he chose just not to start them we would probably been able to have at least one of them back right now. And in turn not be in this run of form.
I don't think I or anyone else in the fanbase has the information required to hold Ange accountable for playing those two. We do know that Romero's injury sustained in that game back was a totally different injury. With respect to van de Ven, we don't have any information on where he stood with medical, whether and under what circumstances he was cleared, what the player wanted to do, etc. Ange seems pretty careful overall with not rushing players back (e.g. Richarlison, Moore), so it seems less plausible to me that he pushed for them to play than that he was given good assurance from both medical and the players that they were ready and available. And if that's the case, I don't think the manager is responsible for drawing and interpreting medical conclusions. That's not his department.
It probably was the latter since most of the medical department has been sacked afterwards. Just wanted to hear your thoughts on that situation. Especially now considering how it looks like we’ve rushed Davies to an extent and how dragusin is playing thru injuries but there’s nothing else he can do. I do think the injuries are its own thing and it will continue until he gets his squad back or at least some depth… Anyway nice thread would love to see more of these!
Even if they had the comprehension skills to understand this (which I doubt), most of them are too far gone down the Ange out rabbit hole to be reasonable about it.
They've absolutely nailed their flag to that mast and feel that they'd be opened up to ridicule if they compromised at all. It's infuriating that type of behaviour has found it's way into sports fandom but it's not at all surprising, given the political landscape in the modern world.
this needs to be pinned on subreddits and whatsapp groups
Very good read…. I keep saying once Romero and VDV are back this team can start getting results. They’re very key in this Ange system playing from the back and baiting the press. Ange is the right man for this job and you can tell his players are still wedded to this project despite bad results…..#AngeIn
Incredible analysis, presentation of data. Thank you. Refreshing to look at the “experiment” calmly, carefully instead of the knee-jerk reactions we get from some fans, commentators.
Thank you, much appreciated!
One can only hope that the board and club heirarchy are also using their data to come to the same conclusions. I fear sacking Ange and hiring somebody else just perpetuates the doom cycle, not to mention would require another squad overhaul to accomodate whatever tactics the new manager would want to implement (see: Amorim at ManU right now).
I do think a lost point of contention in January over the lack of signings is the real difficulty in bringing in quality players who will not only solve the short-term injury crisis but also build long-term stability for future team building. CB is clearly a major problem position currently, but if I was a CB being courted by Lange, I would look at Romero, VdV, Dragusin, and also Vuskovic coming in this summer and wonder about playing time in the long term.
The salary structure also plays a role (and yes, Levy is a cheapskate, which is a big part of the problem). For example, ManU is trying to land Dorgu from Lecce, a guy Spurs were supposedly courting. I would assume Dorgu joining Spurs would have split time at LB with Udogie, but Paratici brought in Udogie for 20m and Lecce is asking for 40m for Dorgu. Of course we need another LB, but if we sign one for 100% more and tell him he's going to split time with Udogie... is Dorgu going to accept that? Should Spurs pay 100% more for a second LB? What does that do to the summer transfer window budget, when we clearly are going to need to add at least one attacking wide player, hopefully another central playmaker, and possibly swap out Betancour and/or Bissouma for somebody who can protect the back line and link with the top more effectively and consistently than either of those two have done this year?
The entire recruitment process is so much more complex than people assume.
Don't get me wrong, Lange et al definitely dropped the ball last summer and didn't add sufficient squad depth for a run in four competitions. But the reality is that emergency fixes in the January window for an injury crisis is more complicated than just screaming, "Buy some players!"
I understand it's complicated, but this is one situation where loans are a good mechanism and make sense. The way I see it, conversations about getting the right players in on a more permanent basis are starting to feel like conversations about redecorating the living room while the house is on fire. I don't think we need to have a conversation with the interior designer, I think we need to call the fire department.
100%. I'm not totally letting Lange off the hook here, just arguing it's much more complicated than yelling "WE NEED PLAYERS!" (which, I recognize is not what you are doing, but what a lot of the fan base is doing).
Loans do have their own nuances. Players going on loan are typically either looking to (1) open an exit from their current situation (e.g., Werner), (2) looking to build experience to break through with their current team (e.g., Donley), or (3) are looking for game time on the expectation that a good performance will then translate into establishment in their actual club (e.g., Lo Celso for the past 3 years).
2s and a club like Spurs are a rare match... I suppose there are players from teams like Real and Barca (e.g., Ansu Fati) who might make sense (Fati's performance at Brighton last year would make me wary), but generally speaking a club the size of Spurs isn't an experience ground for those types. Even Evan Ferguson sounds doubtful about a Spurs loan because he knows Solanke is back in 5 weeks and that will cut into his match time and development.
1s and 3s exist, but are still not easy to find. Deki was a loan-to-buy, as was Cuti, but both were more or less always presumed to be eventual full transfers, so rumors about players like Dibbling right now (last I heard they were pushing loan-to-buy, and he's also only 18 so not necessarily immediate help) aren't true loans the way we usually think about them.
The reality of the situation is, as you accurately say, we need a fire department. Unfortunately, we also have a guy holding the purse who would rather prefer to find a way to put out the fire himself using pitchers of water from the tap.
After the Everton game I felt Levy needed to bite the bullet and pay a big transfer fee and salary to the likes of Vlahovic or Gyorkes (there are rumors floating around about Nico Williams but if Arsenal are sniffing too then we go back to the "which team would you rather join" problem). Until Levy decides to start acting like a buying club, though, I remain skeptical that a transfer like that will ever happen under this ownership.
Fantastic piece. Provides such brilliant context and analysis of the situation in such a rational way. Great work
Thank you, this means a lot!
Well done. Good analysis
I think it's definitely the case that a lack of squad depth is massively hurting us (and the club knew how many games we'd have in the summer and they abjectly failed to address it) but I think there's some stuff missing from this injury data though, namely: severity of injury, importance of the player to the team (i.e. are they are a starter?), and, crucially, previous injuries from players that are now back (e.g. this data misses out Son, Richy and Ben Davies). I also don't think it's "media narrative" that attributes the way we play to injury, Ange has literally said it himself.
I agree with the first point about how severity, duration, importance, etc. would help make the injury data more meaningful. I don't agree with the second about Ange causing injuries; he may be wrong, he may not even have systematically more injuries. No one has really investigated that, to my knowledge; they just keep repeating things out of context, hence media narrative.
Written in such a patronising way it's hard to not read it as biased
We can quibble about the play style, but the biggest reason ange has contributed towards the injury crisis is his refusal to rotate until he has no other options. Udogie, Porro, Son, Solanke, etc. were all run into the ground and have seen massive dips in form, injuries or both. If Ange doesn’t believe the backups are good enough to occasionally relive the starters, then they should be loaned or sold. However, given how competent the backups have looked once integrated into the team, I’ve lost faith in ange’s ability to properly rate the talent available to him.
Nonetheless, good piece even if I don’t agree with all its conclusions.
I don't buy the argument that Ange doesn't rotate or is mismanaging the squad. This does a good job of explaining why (even if I disagree with the low rating of some of our players in here): https://thinkoutsidetheball.substack.com/p/the-hot-mess-state-of-tottenham-hotspur
Thanks for sharing. The article uses a two-match sample size to make that particular point so I hardly think it exonerates Ange and his rotation/substitution patterns. Up until December, Gray and Bergvall were only getting token appearances and they’ve been two of our better players since they were thrusted into the starting XI. Reguilon has at least looked competent in his limited minutes and ange’s refusal to rest Udogie until he was injured looks ever more confusing. Lankshear has hardly played at all and either needs to be deputizing for Dom or loaned out. Spence is the most baffling case of all, and even if the off-pitch rumblings are true, he’s been arguably spurs best player for going on two months now and his previous exclusion from the squad is looking more and more ridiculous. We can all agree that Ange doesn’t have enough to work with, but it’s impossible for me to believe that he couldn’t have managed this better.
If all the assumptions you're making about these players at all points in the season are true, then yes. But whereas you're not training with them every day, the manager is.
Appeals to authority don’t really work when the authority in question is sitting in such a precarious position.
Personally I've been of the opinion that it's not possible to judge whether Postecoglou is good enough or not when so many first choice players are injured, but my opinion was that Postecoglou's approach was a major contributing factor as to why we had so many injuries in the first place. This article has assuaged my concerns in that regard to a point.
However, you've not really addressed his aversion to rotation, which perhaps could have prevented a number of injuries and prevented the players that aren't injured from being quite so exhausted now.
Spence being unused, despite a positive preseason, despite being a literal game changer in his cameo as early as the Colchester match, was not started at either full back position in the league until all other options (including van de Ven at LB) were exhausted. He's demonstrated he could have adequately been rotated with Udogie or Porro, now the former is out and the latter is clearly exhausted, possibly playing through injury too.
Starting Porro against Everton when there's literally no other option for Thursday was a poor choice (though of course squad building/planning is major issue here too).
Having said all that, I'm also not wedded to the Postecoglou experiment for non-statisical reasons, namely that I think he's aggy, petulant and rude and not half as progressively minded as he's been painted, but I admit that is wholly my subjective opinion.
Thanks for writing this, it's very good.
I don't buy the argument that Ange doesn't rotate or is mismanaging the squad. This does a good job of explaining why (even if I disagree with the low rating of some of our players in here): https://thinkoutsidetheball.substack.com/p/the-hot-mess-state-of-tottenham-hotspur
Good article as always.
Even before the Villa game, we had lost to Newcastle, Arsenal, Brighton and Palace, and drawn to Leicester, in our first 9 or so prem games. I can't recall off the top off my head if both Romero and VDV played in those games? If so, many argue that the cracks started to appear even before the injuries started from the Villa game onwards. I would agree that this would still be a small sample size, but there's a feeling that a certain style of team can win points from us even when we're fully fit under Ange.
And then to continue on our tactical fragilities. There's a question about whether we should be dropping so many points even with the injuries. Some of our starting 11's should be more than capable of picking up wins and draws against the opposition we've played. If it's true, as you show, that he's moved away from Ange-ball, it clearly isn't working.
So you wrote an entire dissertation to say that Ange can't do anything without 1 of the best CBs in the world and the fastest CB in the world? That's the argument?
Look who they beat last season...almost exclusively teams 10-20. That VdV/Romero pairing gave up 16 goals to NCU, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Wolves, City in the final stretch of the season
And that 10 game "new manager bounce" you mentioned? It was the same story as the rest of their season...Wins vs 10th-20th. Yes they beat United. The Liverpool win? Pool had 2 redcards and it was a 96th min Matip OG that gave Spurs the win.
Also, suggesting that a manager with new ideas, new methods, new voice, and most importantly, a very very unique tactic, is "new manager bounce" sounds ignorant. Every sport in the world involves things being put on tape and counter measures being taken. To shrug off teams figuring out that if you just sit back patiently, let spurs lose possession and then counter wide is foolish. It is a legitimate concern. Arsenal (1st match) vs our best XI sat back in a 442 like it was 1981. It is also why you see the poor results vs the bottom clubs this season as they play a more long ball approach. And that style should've had Liverpool putting up 10 goals.
This season look at the lineups that had those embarrassing results. Plenty of "data" before the injuries hit.
And it's very "glass half full" to say "other teams press with intensity and they dont have injuries!" I don't have a chart or a telescope, but it seems like common sense when your fullbacks are asked to tour de france every match and your 2 center halves are sprinting from the halfway line to stop wide counters all game...you're going to get some injuries. But hey, other teams work hard...so it's just a coincidence.
The bottom line is that Ange can get away with his style in a league that a lower quality or when he simply has better players. The worst teams in the Premier League are better than the top teams in any league he has coached in. [Celtic >> Soton? I'll give ya that one :) ]
I don't have a problem with anyone that is pro-ange. He says the right things, he is a club-first manager, he takes responsibility....but he IS out of his depth. He is a mid-table manager at best, and his consistent results against the top 10 vs the bottom 10 show this. Even in Europe... winless vs Ranger, Gala and Roma? But beat the teams we can't pronounce?
Do you hold Ange accountable for the injuries on Romero and VDV from that chelsea game? If he chose just not to start them we would probably been able to have at least one of them back right now. And in turn not be in this run of form.
I don't think I or anyone else in the fanbase has the information required to hold Ange accountable for playing those two. We do know that Romero's injury sustained in that game back was a totally different injury. With respect to van de Ven, we don't have any information on where he stood with medical, whether and under what circumstances he was cleared, what the player wanted to do, etc. Ange seems pretty careful overall with not rushing players back (e.g. Richarlison, Moore), so it seems less plausible to me that he pushed for them to play than that he was given good assurance from both medical and the players that they were ready and available. And if that's the case, I don't think the manager is responsible for drawing and interpreting medical conclusions. That's not his department.
It probably was the latter since most of the medical department has been sacked afterwards. Just wanted to hear your thoughts on that situation. Especially now considering how it looks like we’ve rushed Davies to an extent and how dragusin is playing thru injuries but there’s nothing else he can do. I do think the injuries are its own thing and it will continue until he gets his squad back or at least some depth… Anyway nice thread would love to see more of these!
Thank you!