Match Day Thread Chelsea v Spurs

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
PowerSpurs said:
The 10 points for decisions is a statistical calculation. It's not a matter of opinion. If you think the calculation is wrong then explain why.
Click to expand...
While I don't disagree that there have been decisions in our games that have lost us a significant number of points, you surely cannot look at one side of the argument in isolation.
In those games, were there also wrong decisions that impacted the opposition? And what about other matches, where we benefitted from a decision.
Personally, I think that we have been on the wrong end of some frankly ludicrous decisions, but without putting my opposition fan glasses on I cannot confirm whether we are in positive or negative equity.

On the thorny subject of Corruption v Incompetence, I desperately hope for the sake of the game that there is no deliberate manipulation of incidents and thereby results, but it's easy to be convinced otherwise. The last match stands out for me, not just for the recency or the significance of two contentious decisions on our future, but that one of those in particular has been shown to have been totally misrepresented by the officials.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Changing Man
Left on the Shelf said:
While I don't disagree that there have been decisions in our games that have lost us a significant number of points, you surely cannot look at one side of the argument in isolation.
In those games, were there also wrong decisions that impacted the opposition? And what about other matches, where we benefitted from a decision.
Personally, I think that we have been on the wrong end of some frankly ludicrous decisions, but without putting my opposition fan glasses on I cannot confirm whether we are in positive or negative equity.

On the thorny subject of Corruption v Incompetence, I desperately hope for the sake of the game that there is no deliberate manipulation of incidents and thereby results, but it's easy to be convinced otherwise. The last match stands out for me, not just for the recency or the significance of two contentious decisions on our future, but that one of those in particular has been shown to have been totally misrepresented by the officials.
Click to expand...
I did the calculation to try to get a handle on how much refereeing decisions could affect the final table. I've not claimed that it has actually cost us 10 points but I think the difference between the best and worst outcome based on random outcomes for close decisions is about 20 points so if it were true that we've suffered a 10 point loss compared to average it would not show any bias. I was mostly trying to debunk the conspiracy theories.
 
Left on the Shelf said:
While I don't disagree that there have been decisions in our games that have lost us a significant number of points, you surely cannot look at one side of the argument in isolation.
In those games, were there also wrong decisions that impacted the opposition? And what about other matches, where we benefitted from a decision.
Personally, I think that we have been on the wrong end of some frankly ludicrous decisions, but without putting my opposition fan glasses on I cannot confirm whether we are in positive or negative equity.

On the thorny subject of Corruption v Incompetence, I desperately hope for the sake of the game that there is no deliberate manipulation of incidents and thereby results, but it's easy to be convinced otherwise. The last match stands out for me, not just for the recency or the significance of two contentious decisions on our future, but that one of those in particular has been shown to have been totally misrepresented by the officials.
Click to expand...
Like you I hope there is no agenda against us or any team , without doubt the main reason the club are where we are is injuries , abysmal defending , piss poor recruitment , not replacing key players , Kane and Son have left a massive hole in this team and a sticking plaster will not heal the wound left behind
 
  • Like
Reactions: Left on the Shelf
littleDinosaurLuke said:
It’s a no brainer that if Spurs had had fewer injuries the team would have performed significantly better.

Ditto had a manager/coach found a settled team and formation and employed suitable tactics, fostered a good team spirit, injected confidence etc. That’s with this group of players.

And more favourable refereeing decisions help too.

No s*** Shergar.

But that is the challenge for all teams.
Most teams in the PL now have a decent squad of players. For the middle dozen or so teams, the difference is not the personnel, but all those variables mentioned above and how they cope with them.

So it’s not unreasonable to claim that the 17th placed team could be top 6 or 8 next season, even with the same squad, with an upturn in each of those variables.
Click to expand...
That's basically what I've been saying. I would put it more like this.
A football match is contested by two teams whose skill levels are driven mostly by the money invested in the team but with some uncertainty arising from the level of coaching, variability in recruitment and the number of injuries. The match itself has uncertainties entirely out of anyone's control mostly from refereeing decisions but also due to slight differences in ball or player's positions which result in goals or misses (eg Kolo Muani's terrible pass on Tuesday which was very unlikely to have given rise to a goal). There are additional uncertainties driven by the rarity of goals and the non exact correlation between goals and points (two 1-0 wins are worth 50% more points than a 2-0 and a 0-0).

Since there is no way of getting a sustainable edge in coaching, injuries or recruitment and everything else I've mentioned is truly random, a proper knowledge of football leads to understanding that the only thing truly under the control of the club is money so increasing money flow is what matters most.
 
Citizen Kane. said:
A very sensible place to start in what is highly speculative analysis is to
Click to expand...

comment on what I actually stated. Which was :

1. Of the 11 games drawn, only 6 of them needed to be won

2. Would that (not) have been achievable if at least one of Kulu
or Maddison were fully fit and in the starting XIs for the above games.
 
The RDBD said:
< show your workings >
Click to expand...
I discretionary decision per game allocating one point randomly. 38 points per club randomly allocated gives a standard deviation of 6. One club out of 20 will be at 2 standard deviations so 12. I rounded that down to 10.
 
PowerSpurs said:
I discretionary decision per game allocating one point randomly. 38 points per club randomly allocated gives a standard deviation of 6. One club out of 20 will be at 2 standard deviations so 12. I rounded that down to 10.
Click to expand...

What pdf are you claiming these decisions conform to
(Normal, Uniform etc) ??
 
Huddlejonny said:
Just for a bit of perspective, the average age of the 'youngsters' below is 21 all signed during Ange & Franks tenure I think.

For some of them that was 3 managers ago. Add in all the major injuries we've had in that time and some band aid signings like RKM & Gallagher ( Palinha gets a pass, I think he's excellent on his day ) and we have had a really unsettled team for the last 2-3 years, a tough place to develop for any young footballer with all these distractions.

The younger players like Lucas, Gray, Tel, Odebert have been playing all over the pitch with a very poor strike force up front..

The only thing consistent with Spurs over the last few years is the amount of injuries the club has suffered and the managerial merry go round this season.

I do think we have some decent young players in this group below and a couple of real prospects out on loan but to see there true potential we need consistency at the club and a huge investment in goal scoring footballers.

I'm praying that RDZ is the man to keep us from relegation next Sunday but to also settle the club and help bring back our identity. He needs to sort out what players are worth keeping on the books and move on the deadwood for a start and then invest in proven goal scorers no matter what the cost!

Lucas Bergvall - 20
Archie Gray 20
Matty Tel 21
Antonín Kinský 23
Wilson Odobert 21
Souza 19
Pape Matar Sarr 23
Destiny Udogie 23
Xavi Simons 23


Click to expand...
The only ones I’d keep if we survive are Bergvall and Udogie. Simons stays on the basis his injury prevents him from being sold. I like Sarr but I feel like his time is done, partly thanks to the moronic decision to sign Gallagher on £200k a week. We’re not shifting that lump of **** any time soon.

If for a second we assume RDZ does keep us up. We go into the summer and next season with two certainties:

No European football.
A need for quality additions.

Game time for many players, let alone young ones become reduced due to those two factors. There won’t be enough minutes to go around and so even if some of them were any good, which they aren’t, there’s just no space or time for them. I think it’s best to cut our losses and move on rather than somewhat beat a dead horse trying to hope they amount to anything in a Tottenham shirt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huddlejonny
Dier Hard said:
The only ones I’d keep if we survive are Bergvall and Udogie. Simons stays on the basis his injury prevents him from being sold. I like Sarr but I feel like his time is done, partly thanks to the moronic decision to sign Gallagher on £200k a week. We’re not shifting that lump of **** any time soon.

If for a second we assume RDZ does keep us up. We go into the summer and next season with two certainties:

No European football.
A need for quality additions.

Game time for many players, let alone young ones become reduced due to those two factors. There won’t be enough minutes to go around and so even if some of them were any good, which they aren’t, there’s just no space or time for them. I think it’s best to cut our losses and move on rather than somewhat beat a dead horse trying to hope they amount to anything in a Tottenham shirt.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't keep Udogie. Another one that isn't progressing and is unbelievably injury prone (we even signed him injured iirc). He's one I'm hoping there will be a lot of interest in come the summer.

I feel the same about Solanke. Not his fault we paid £60m for him and he isn't a terrible player to have, if only as back up. But the guy is literally never fit, so what's the point in keeping him?
 
Citizen Kane. said:
I wouldn't keep Udogie. Another one that isn't progressing and is unbelievably injury prone (we even signed him injured iirc). He's one I'm hoping there will be a lot of interest in come the summer.

I feel the same about Solanke. Not his fault we paid £60m for him and he isn't a terrible player to have, if only as back up. But the guy is literally never fit, so what's the point in keeping him?
Click to expand...
He’s a good LB on his day, agree the injuries are a concern, I’d definitely keep him for another year though at least.

Solanke’s **** however. Never really understood what fans see in him. Marginally better all rounder than Richarlison (who isn’t?!) but a weaker finisher. The only poorer starting striker than he and Richarlison in the last 20+ years is Soldado. Makes you wanna almost cry when you look through some of the strikers we’ve had then see these two.
 
Dier Hard said:
He’s a good LB on his day, agree the injuries are a concern, I’d definitely keep him for another year though at least.

Solanke’s **** however. Never really understood what fans see in him. Marginally better all rounder than Richarlison (who isn’t?!) but a weaker finisher. The only poorer starting striker than he and Richarlison in the last 20+ years is Soldado. Makes you wanna almost cry when you look through some of the strikers we’ve had then see these two.
Click to expand...

Vincent Janssen?
 
Dier Hard said:
He’s a good LB on his day, agree the injuries are a concern, I’d definitely keep him for another year though at least.

Solanke’s **** however. Never really understood what fans see in him. Marginally better all rounder than Richarlison (who isn’t?!) but a weaker finisher. The only poorer starting striker than he and Richarlison in the last 20+ years is Soldado. Makes you wanna almost cry when you look through some of the strikers we’ve had then see these two.
Click to expand...
I think it’s harsh to put soldado in the same category as richarlison.

Soldado was putting very good numbers up in la liga playing at teams not called Madrid or Barcelona so seemed like an excellent buy at the time. It’s only in hindsight that we see it turned out to be a shocker. I guess the intangibles you can’t really measure about how they will settle Into a new league came into play there.

Whereas everyone knew richarlison wasnt going to be good enough and nowhere near worth the price we paid for him. That was just rank bad decision making.

The problem is that replacing Kane is impossible for a club like spurs as you’re moving into the Haaland’s and mbappes of the world.

If we can keep him fit and actually give him service, I think Solanke can easily get similar numbers to people like Watkins, Thiago, Pedro, Gyokeres.

Most other teams can make up for the lack of quality out and out strikers in football nowadays with their wide players and a decent number 10. Unfortunately though, our best players suited for scoring these goals have been injured all or most of the season.
 
SarrMan said:
I think it’s harsh to put soldado in the same category as richarlison.

Soldado was putting very good numbers up in la liga playing at teams not called Madrid or Barcelona so seemed like an excellent buy at the time. It’s only in hindsight that we see it turned out to be a shocker. I guess the intangibles you can’t really measure about how they will settle Into a new league came into play there.

Whereas everyone knew richarlison wasnt going to be good enough and nowhere near worth the price we paid for him. That was just rank bad decision making.

The problem is that replacing Kane is impossible for a club like spurs as you’re moving into the Haaland’s and mbappes of the world.

If we can keep him fit and actually give him service, I think Solanke can easily get similar numbers to people like Watkins, Thiago, Pedro, Gyokeres.

Most other teams can make up for the lack of quality out and out strikers in football nowadays with their wide players and a decent number 10. Unfortunately though, our best players suited for scoring these goals have been injured all or most of the season.
Click to expand...
You’re right in that he was great elsewhere but he was awful for us, hence why his name is in with Richarlison and Solanke as being one of the poorest strikers we’ve had in 20+ years.

Completely disagree with your analysis on Solanke though. There’s no basis to back it up on either. Poorer strike rate than Richarlison throughout his career and only had one season of decent scoring in the Premier League. He’s a relegation calibre striker.

We need rid of both. Persisting with either is just footballing suicide. They’re truly awful strikers.
 
Dier Hard said:
He’s a good LB on his day, agree the injuries are a concern, I’d definitely keep him for another year though at least.

Solanke’s **** however. Never really understood what fans see in him. Marginally better all rounder than Richarlison (who isn’t?!) but a weaker finisher. The only poorer starting striker than he and Richarlison in the last 20+ years is Soldado. Makes you wanna almost cry when you look through some of the strikers we’ve had then see these two.
Click to expand...
Here's the weird thing about our strikers: Richarlison is a legit good finisher but his positioning is awful, while Solanke's positioning is good but his finishing is average

Of the two, though, I'd probably keep Solanke, given his holdup play is leagues better and his ability to nick the ball off defenders can be an asset for closing out games - but, if the tone hadn't quite implied it enough, that does make him more of a bench option
 
humanbeingincroydon said:
Here's the weird thing about our strikers: Richarlison is a legit good finisher but his positioning is awful, while Solanke's positioning is good but his finishing is average

Of the two, though, I'd probably keep Solanke, given his holdup play is leagues better and his ability to nick the ball off defenders can be an asset for closing out games - but, if the tone hadn't quite implied it enough, that does make him more of a bench option
Click to expand...
Sell them both, buy a new one and have Lankshear as the understudy.

We can’t keep persisting with mediocrity, it’s been killing us the last few years, may even actually kill us on Sunday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back