For the past three seasons City's seasons have been the same: start strong, lose one match, fall to pieces. We haven't heard any pundits talking about that team having a "fear of failure" though...
I think our form against the rest of the top six is a side effect of Pochettino's coaching. He gets the very best out of the group of players he has but it doesn't actually alter the fact that the other five sides have more expensive and better players. On the day the better players are likely to win. We more consistently beat teams with worse players than us than any of our rivals. As our squad gets older wiser and better I expect we will begin to beat the rivals too. In the meantime beating most everyone else will have to suffice.
Doubt me? How? What exactly do you doubt? You will see that I have a one in five like ratio, I see no reason for doubt. But let's keep it to the football shall we? If you read Phil McNulty he says we need new players in January, look back at my posts, I said it too so I'm in tune with contemporary thinking.
I don't think Spurs have a fear of failure, but there might be a lack of confidence from not having gone away to these teams and beaten them. From watching the recent games at Utd and Arsenal, I think that the team has played with a lot more caution than in other games, the swagger has been missing and players have been reluctant to commit forward in the same numbers. Is too much respect given to these opponents (which might not always been deserved)? It's probably true of all teams playing away to the best sides, but it's much harder to play when the opposition have more of the ball and can cause you problems. Against lesser teams, Spurs wear teams down with relentless pressing and as a result, winning possession in areas of the pitch where can be put under pressure and have to defend. When the oppositon have more of the ball higher up the pitch, you can looked rattled. Arsenal brought the ball forward through midfield yesterday very easily and if they hadn't kept looking for the perfect pass/goal all the time when in and around the box, they could have really embarrassed you.
True. But results against your main rivals are important because they are just that, your main rivals. In other words the teams you expect to be challenging for the same honours as you. They are also a yardstick of how you measure up against your main competition.
Again, I don't think it matters........Last season Liverpool's results against the other 'Top 6' sides were...... Chelsea [H] - D 1-1; [ A] - W 2-1 Spurs [H] - W 2-0; [A]- D 1-1 Citeh [H] - W1-0; [ A] - D 1-1 Arsenal [H] - W 3-1; [A] - W 3-4 United [H] - D 0-0; [A] - D 1-1 They didn't lose a game and took 4 points off us, Chelsea, Citeh and Arsenal. They scraped 4th, on the last day of the season 10 points behind us. The one team they didn't beat, United, finished below them. If you win enough matches, then you'll win the league. Who you beat is irrelevant.
That’s a very unusual set of results and probably indicative of Pool’s inconsistency as much as anything else. City trashed them this season. I still maintain that it’s important results wise and psychologically to do well against your main rivals. Plus in doing so you’re taking points from a direct rival.
As I stated, the source data is there for those inclined to compute the reality (I am not doing it for the PL era - unless someone does the data ETL in precisely the form I demand ) .
Liverpool were nowhere near consistent enough. Palace won away to some of the top six too, but were nowhere near good enough to be near the top of the league. Their results in these games can be on explained; Liverpool raised their game for the better opponents, but their frailties were exposed in other games over 38 PL games. Palace's wins were freakish when they were desperate for points. Spurs have been good enough and consistent enough to win the title in each of the last two seasons, but have not been able to get results away to the top six. 13 dropped points in those 5 games last season was decisive. So what's the problem?
I think psychologically it’s good to do well against your rivals. It gives you confidence and detracts from theirs.
I suggest you read a few more of Phil McNumpty's articles before you align yourself with him as 'contemporary thinkers' I seldom find myself agreeing with much that he writes.....then again we are not always in agreement
We dropped more points against teams outside the 'Top 6' in both those seasons. Last season we dropped 11 points away to Everton, Leicester, WBA, Bournemouth and West Ham. So, if we'd won all of those, the outcome would have been what? It may not suit your narrative but points are points, no matter who they are won against.
The only thing he wrote in that entire article that I agreed with was that we should go back in for Barkley in January. As long as the price isn't absurd (somewhere around £15m is the best we can hope for), I'm all for it. Would give us something different in the final third, gives Dele and Eriksen a kick up the arse, covers us if Lamela can't rediscover his pre-injury form, and enables us to sell N'koudou, who has frankly been the biggest waste of time and money in a Spurs shirt since Paulinho. Pre-World Cup and soon to turn 24, I expect him to give 100% at least between Jan and the end of the season. Poch has long been an admirer so could be a coup for us.
Yep, agreed. If we can get him at a decent price and MP can get him fit and remotivated, he can be a class act.
I can't argue with your maths. But 84 points from 99 in the other games is as consistent as you could ever hope to be - it's over 2.5 points per game. It's a huge handicap if the other 5 games are virtually a write off - which they have been for the past three seasons.
As others have said, we played really badly and that performance didn't deserve anything. Starting a bunch of players who were struggling for fitness or with injuries was a terrible idea in a game like that. Video replays would've completely reversed the result, though. Ridiculous, really.