Yeah I think the players that Spurs have would be better suited with 3 CBs and then Porro and Udogie or if Ange wants to persist with the current system and formation then he needs a new RB.
Depends how you measure form...if we continue scoring two goals for every one we concede we will most likely finish 3rd and win a cup. We won't go all season winning half the matches easily and losing the other half by a single goal...
There aren't many points to match from the end of last season (as your post says) and so every chance we can improve on last season's finish.
Not if we continue losing at the rate we are. We've lost 5, won 5 and drawn 1 this season. Weirdly enough, including the Chelsea defeat last season where our impressive run ended, we've actually played 38 games across the two seasons now and have 17 wins, 17 losses and 4 draws, so we're winning as much as we're losing in the league. If that was a regular league season our average finish would be around 8th-9th based on where 55 points would've gotten you in the last three seasons. Our form definitely needs to improve if a top five finish is the aim again.
Only 3 teams have lost more games in the PL than Spurs them 3 teams currently occupy the relegation spots people who have an issue with how things are going have adequate reason to ask questions
No. Results are an outcome. Goals scored and conceded cause the outcome so are a better measure of what the future is likely to bring.
You’ve pushed this before but it doesn’t work like that. Say over 20 games you score 40 goals but concede 20 you’re scoring twice as many as you concede but if your victories are games where you score 4 and defeats are when you concede 2 then you will lose just as many as you win or more
Only one team in the PL has a better goal difference than Spurs. That team is first in the league. If our goal difference is 35 at the end of the season which is just an extrapolation of where we are now we will likely be third at worst. Everyone is too negative based on an unlikely sequence of results. We won't continue to spread goals around as unevenly as we have. Football doesn't work like that.
Absolutely agree but they are also a much worse predictor of future performance than goal difference.
Yes but that is a very unlikely outcome over a whole season. It's actually pretty unlikely over 11 matches but we've managed it somehow. It won't continue to happen. By the way...I know it works like that because I've done a monte carlo simulation.
It isn’t. Form is literally the best predictor. Form shows and measures a team’s consistency and consistency will always be the determining factor to a team’s success or failure. GD doesn’t take into account the spread of goals. You could win 5 games 4-0 and then lose 5 games 1-0. You’d be worse off than a side that won 6 games 1-0 and lost 4 games 4-0, despite having a far superior GD. We had the best GD in the league in both 15/16 and 16/17 but never won the title in either.
Unlikely over 11 matches but it happened. Spurs erratic form has been over a year and nearly 40 league games so it’s not that unlikely to happen regardless of Monte Carlo simulation or not.
Our league form Since matchday 10 of last season: LLLDLWWWLWDWDWLWWLWDWLLLLWLW DWLLWWLWLWL It's all over the place. Very hard to build momentum when the next defeat is just around the corner. I wouldn't even mind a series of draws, just to establish a bit of solidity and consistency.
Board would be 50% ****ter without him. I think I disagree with him on 90% of the stuff we chat on but that’s what makes it great, lol.
Being a Spurs fan has had occasional annoyances. Their crowning glory, outweighing Levy's last minute fax failure to get Moutinho, the key to AVB's system, in a year Spurs missed the CL by one or two points was it?, was Pochettino sending Spurs out of contention by playing Kane while still injured for the third time that year. If I had one redo, it would be playing Liverpool in the CL final with 11 players rather than 10 who could run and one who had to limp. Play the same players and subs who played against Ajax, though maybe...maybe...bringing a limping Kane on late. Say they earned their spot with how they'd played. Thanks for the stats and analysis., which I learned from. Upgrading anywhere is always helpful. I grant your logic that better midfielders would equal less fatigue, and really like the idea concerning the point of Angeball (more control for the midfield). But I don't view the midfield as a relative weakness. I would say the back line is the best of the three groups. Midfield and the forwards are at a similar level, I think. My disagreement is that the Aston Villa game was the best I've ever seen Spurs play (though granted I'm very subjective, and no doubt influenced by watching on a huge screen instead of watching white and navy ants scurry around.) So my conclusion ATM is that Spurs are good but burned out...and unlikely to get unburned out anytime soon. But maybe I'm wrong. I've been wrong before. Once. July 16, 1987. In any case, if some better analysis presents itself, or is presented to me, I will in theory drop the one I have like a bad transmission. I may, on the other hand, cling to my mistaken opinion like grim death. But for now for me it's fatigue abetted by poor decisions (not limiting players' minutes, for one). Poor decisions are inevitable and yet can always account for a lack of trophies for a club Tottenham's size. I've banged on about a couple of bad purchases for too long to do so again for a bit, anyway. (One of them made War and Peace look pithy.) What strikes me now is that the process where neither one of the two reserve FBs was registered for the Europa wasn't a bad decision so much as insane, self-sabotaging and/or the result of an intervention by a coven of witches.
The flip side of this is that only 2 teams have won more games in the Premier League than Spurs and it's City and Liverpool.
