The Just-Past Half-Term Report

[BoringOldFan]

It's the end of the year, and a good time to take a look at Spurs' progress so far in the Premier League compared to last season. To do this, I have re-ordered last seasons fixtures so they are the same as the sequence in which we played each particular team home and away this season.

So to start with, how many more points do you think we have after 20 games compared to the total from the equivalent games last season? 5? 8? 10? More? The answer is actually 2. The facts are that so far we have had 6 results better than last season, 6 worse and 8 the same. So maybe not the vast improvement - certainly in terms of points and results - that is the popular perception.

We are entering a season-changing period when we go to Liverpool on January 10. Looking at that and the following 7 fixtures, those 8 games brought us the princely sum of one point last season. True, The Wonder of Ramos was in charge for many of those games, but not even twice that total would be acceptable this season, eh Harry?

Four clean sheets on the trot. Not bad, eh? That brings the total to 6 so far this season, compared to last season when at this stage we had - er - 6. So again, perhaps we shouldn't run away with the idea that we've become Fort Knox at the back.

Looking at the rolling form guide of points from the previous 6 games, we are still struggling to get on or above the 2-points-per-game average that would all but guarantee Champions League football. True, all you need to get in the top four is to have one more point (or better GD) than the team in 5th place, but let's face it - who wants to go through the last day of the 2005/06 season again?

The lower graph has last season's points in green and this season's in blue. So you see, we are not miles above where we were from the same games last season. But now is the time to put some clear blue water between then and now, and rack up more than the one point we got at home to Wigan last term. Those key fixtures are Liverpool (A), Hull (H), Fulham (H), Birmingham (A), Aston Villa (H), Wolverhampton (A), Wigan (A) and Everton (H).

[Note: Last season's relegated teams have been paired off with the promoted ones as follows: Birmingham/Boro, Burnley/West Brom, Wolves/Newcastle].

We have no European football this season, we're out of the Carling Cup, and may only be losing Assou-Ekotto to the ACN - or injury if you believe the ITK. So with the current squad and lack of fixture congestion, this may be our best chance in four years to finally do the do and make the CL. Our next game is Peterborough in the FA Cup, and we should be able to see them off with squad players. So even with no winter break, Harry has the opportunity to rest key players for nearly two weeks before the Liverpool game.

We've done ok to get to get where we are, even if the stats show that it's not really much better than what we achieved in the same games last season. But to finish in the top four - the season starts here.

Come On You Spurs!​

 

[spursLA]

Excellent analysis BOF. Thanks for the effort.
Looks to me as tough we have two more opportunities to show serious improvement over last season. The next string of 8 games and then 3 more after game 29. Extrapolating the line to the end of the season it looks to me as if we might wind up somewhere north of 60 points. Here's hoping the loss of Lennon and most of the team's pace along with him doesn't snuff out the chance of improvement.

 

[SimonSpur]

That is a great and very enlightening analysis, BOF - thanks mate.

 

[DiscoD1882]

It kind of pops the bubble a little..........But good work

 

[Midostouch]

Thanks for an excellent analysis BOF. I also read a statistic somewhere though that says that every season we get more points in the second half of the season than we do in the first. Let's all put faith in that one too. :grin:

 

[davidmatzdorf]

I also read a statistic somewhere though that says that every season we get more points in the second half of the season than we do in the first.

Unfortunately, it is only true for the past three seasons:

2005/06: 1st 19 games 34 points, 2nd 19 games 31 points.
2006/07: 1st 19 games 28 points, 2nd 19 games 32 points.
2007/08: 1st 19 games 21 points, 2nd 25 games 31 points.
2008/09: 1st 19 games 20 points, 2nd 31 games 31 points.

At least we've been remarkably consistent in the second half of every season :wink:.

 

[berbie38]

Statistics gone mad! Jan 11 last year we had 20 points!! Jan 3 this year we have 37 !! The improvement is there to see in front of your very eyes! :bang:

 

[camaj]

Statistics gone mad! Jan 11 last year we had 20 points!! Jan 3 this year we have 37 !! The improvement is there to see in front of your very eyes! :bang:

You've missed the point. Looking at the date is an abitary benchmark and tells us nothing. If we'd played the 4 worst teams at home, at the start of the season, we'd probably win all 4. If we'd played the 4 best, away, we'd probably lose all 4. If someone said "We'll be title contenders/relegation candidates this season" based on that then they would have failed to put the results in context. Other than this season I've seen posts in Spurs chat suggesting we might go down simply because we had a few tricky games to start with. That is as equally ignorant as suggesting we're vastly better because we've had a good start.

BOF demonstrates the reason I started my premiership golf sig in the first place. People get hypnotised by the table and forget that it's who you get the points against rather than how many, that are an indication of improvment or decline. I believe Ramos and Jol were unfairly treated. Yes we'd had poor starts to the season but if you looked at the results compared to what we had got in previous seasons, they weren't that bad.

We got of to a flyer this season, but it was only a surprise to those who hadn't spotted that we'd done very well against the same teams last season. I remember them remarking on this on an early episode of The Spurs Show. Someone pointed out that while we were doing well it was a bit of an illusion since these were games we could win anyway.

However I believe we've made some progress, but not as much as the table would lead you to believe. The good news is that having these fixtures up front gives the players self-belief and time to gel as a unit. Also the good news is that we've always been pretty close to fourth since Hoddle left, at least in terms of points. We've never needed a revolution, just an extra 8 points a season.

The real work starts now. We need someone to replace Jenas/Huddlestone. We need a defender to either back up Daws/Bassong or one to replace them. We need cover for Palacios.

 

[Shepspurs]

I also keep a graph showing a similar comparison, but go back to the 2003/04 season. I would load it up but have no idea how.

The interesting fact that we are only 2 points better off than last year, is countered by the fact that last year was the best since at least 2002/03.

The totals are as follows

2009/10 37 points
2008/09 35
2007/08 28
2006/07 32
2005/06 31
2004/05 28
2003/04 23

 

[berbie38]

You've missed the point. Looking at the date is an abitary benchmark and tells us nothing. If we'd played the 4 worst teams at home, at the start of the season, we'd probably win all 4. If we'd played the 4 best, away, we'd probably lose all 4. If someone said "We'll be title contenders/relegation candidates this season" based on that then they would have failed to put the results in context. Other than this season I've seen posts in Spurs chat suggesting we might go down simply because we had a few tricky games to start with. That is as equally ignorant as suggesting we're vastly better because we've had a good start.

BOF demonstrates the reason I started my premiership golf sig in the first place. People get hypnotised by the table and forget that it's who you get the points against rather than how many, that are an indication of improvment or decline. I believe Ramos and Jol were unfairly treated. Yes we'd had poor starts to the season but if you looked at the results compared to what we had got in previous seasons, they weren't that bad.

We got of to a flyer this season, but it was only a surprise to those who hadn't spotted that we'd done very well against the same teams last season. I remember them remarking on this on an early episode of The Spurs Show. Someone pointed out that while we were doing well it was a bit of an illusion since these were games we could win anyway.

However I believe we've made some progress, but not as much as the table would lead you to believe. The good news is that having these fixtures up front gives the players self-belief and time to gel as a unit. Also the good news is that we've always been pretty close to fourth since Hoddle left, at least in terms of points. We've never needed a revolution, just an extra 8 points a season.

The real work starts now. We need someone to replace Jenas/Huddlestone. We need a defender to either back up Daws/Bassong or one to replace them. We need cover for Palacios.

I disagree, not all teams that we have played this season are going to be in exactly the same form or have the same squads as last year, you tell me the last time we had 37 points at this stage? also why do we need to replace Huddlestone the man is coming on leaps & bounds, Gary Mcallister compared him after the Hammers game as the nearest you will get to Xabi Alonso. we have one of the strongest squads in the premier league now, its time to stop making excuses and realise our full potential, this year!

 

[davidmatzdorf]

You've missed the point. Looking at the date is an abitary benchmark and tells us nothing. If we'd played the 4 worst teams at home, at the start of the season, we'd probably win all 4. If we'd played the 4 best, away, we'd probably lose all 4. If someone said "We'll be title contenders/relegation candidates this season" based on that then they would have failed to put the results in context. Other than this season I've seen posts in Spurs chat suggesting we might go down simply because we had a few tricky games to start with. That is as equally ignorant as suggesting we're vastly better because we've had a good start.

I wouldn't have put it the same way as berbie38, but I don't think he's missed the point at all.

These comparing-like-with-like tables are useful, but only to a limited extent and I strongly contend that they reveal a great deal less than comparing-date-with-date tables, especially at the halfway point of a season.

The like-with-like table is based in part on a fallacious assumption, which is that any given team gets similar results from year to year against its specific opponents. Obviously, the opposite is true: every year, we beat different teams, draw to different teams and lose to different teams.

There is a limited amount of credence to comparing our results against top 4 teams and relegation/promotion sides, but that constitutes 7 out of 19 opponents and 3 of those aren't even the same clubs. That leaves 12-15 broadly mid-table opponents where it is easily demonstrable that we get completely different results from year to year. So there is very little that one can conclude by comparing our results against (say) Wigan, Everton and Hull this season to the same matches last season.

And it's even less reliable than that would suggest. Last season, we did remarkably well against top 4 sides and amazingly badly against relegation/promotion sides. This year we have continued neither trend.

At half-term, any given team will - roughly - have played every other team once and will have played half of its matches at home and half away. It's much more informative to compare our accumulated points to date with our accumulated points at the same stage last season - the only time in a season when once can say this with confidence. That will tell us whether we have been playing well or badly, because the average standard of the opposition over our first 19 matches this season is the same as the average standard was over the first 19 matches of last season.

And that accurately shows the magnitude of the improvement. Last season we obtained 20 points from our first 19 league matches. This season, playing against the same average standard of opponent, we obtained 34 points from our first 19 matches - that's an improvement of 70% in our points return, after having played every team once.

That's much more revealing than comparing specific opponents, whom we played at different times in the previous season, with the club and its management in, to put it mildly, a very differing state of stability.

 

[JimmyG2]

Fascinating article and responses but you know what they say about statistics.
Equally important are momentum, confidence and the impact of new players on the squad.
We are benefitting from a much more stable team and squad environment under a manager who has already exceeded the average minimum stay of managers over the last 15 yrs and who looks like getting at least another season.
The additions are ex players returning or players known to Harry who have performed particularly well plus Palacios and Bassong. Only fringe rather than key players have left and the feeling of stability and of continued development without undue disruption has been crucial.
This can be seen in the way the team has responded to the absences of Woodgate,Modric and King. Players have responded to this new squad cohesiveness, seen in the return to form of Gomes and the improvements in the form and ability of Lennon and Dawson.Huddlestone too, trusted by Harry to start almost every game, has improved his all round play.
So individuals within the team have developed and improved, key players have been retained and new players have upgraded the squad. The team is playing with greater confidence in itself and with each other.
Whatever the statistics indicate I like the feeling the team is giving me and I prefer it to last year.

 

[berbie38]

I wouldn't have put it the same way as berbie38, but I don't think he's missed the point at all.

These comparing-like-with-like tables are useful, but only to a limited extent and I strongly contend that they reveal a great deal less than comparing-date-with-date tables, especially at the halfway point of a season.

The like-with-like table is based in part on a fallacious assumption, which is that any given team gets similar results from year to year against its specific opponents. Obviously, the opposite is true: every year, we beat different teams, draw to different teams and lose to different teams.

There is a limited amount of credence to comparing our results against top 4 teams and relegation/promotion sides, but that constitutes 7 out of 19 opponents and 3 of those aren't even the same clubs. That leaves 12-15 broadly mid-table opponents where it is easily demonstrable that we get completely different results from year to year. So there is very little that one can conclude by comparing our results against (say) Wigan, Everton and Hull this season to the same matches last season.

And it's even less reliable than that would suggest. Last season, we did remarkably well against top 4 sides and amazingly badly against relegation/promotion sides. This year we have continued neither trend.

At half-term, any given team will - roughly - have played every other team once and will have played half of its matches at home and half away. It's much more informative to compare our accumulated points to date with our accumulated points at the same stage last season - the only time in a season when once can say this with confidence. That will tell us whether we have been playing well or badly, because the average standard of the opposition over our first 19 matches this season is the same as the average standard was over the first 19 matches of last season.

And that accurately shows the magnitude of the improvement. Last season we obtained 20 points from our first 19 league matches. This season, playing against the same average standard of opponent, we obtained 34 points from our first 19 matches - that's an improvement of 70% in our points return, after having played every team once.

That's much more revealing than comparing specific opponents, whom we played at different times in the previous season, with the club and its management in, to put it mildly, a very differing state of stability.

Very well put but to state the obvious the magnitude of our improvement has surely got to be judged by viewing our consistently good performances on the pitch (wolves apart) & not a pile of statistics.

 

[walworthyid]

I agree with dm, this analysis is only valuable to a limited extent. It doesn't take into account form, ours or theirs, which is a massive indicator of how we are actually doing, or the confidence that good form brings. I would also say that comparing games that we played under Ramos games we played shortly after are misleading because we were low on confidence which affected the way we played and consequently the result.

There has been a consistent but gradual improvement in our play, confidence and results since Harry took over which I think is clear for all to see. This season we have played badly on very few occasions and have still managed to get a result on a couple of occasions (Sunderland springs to mind as does the Birmingham game where we were quite lucky and even Pompey away), we have missed key players when playing the top 4 which again affected the result. I would like to play the scum, chelski and mancs games again with a full squad and see what happens.

So basically, you look on the pitch to see where you are, you look at around 540 minutes since we last conseded a goal, you look at dominating Villa, Everton and competing with Blackburn and Fulham away. You look at how many goals we score, you look at giving Man City a lesson in football for 90 minutes a couple of weeks ago. And lastly, you look at the league table and see a team in 4th spot.

 

[Shepspurs]

Having added some statistics to this debate (post No 9), I would like to add, and agree with those that are saying it, that they do not really prove much. The only one that really matters will be the number of points we have, compared to others, after 38 games.

However, its a good way to start a debate.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Very well put but to state the obvious the magnitude of our improvement has surely got to be judged by viewing our consistently good performances on the pitch (wolves apart) & not a pile of statistics.

In a way, the value of statistics is revealed by the very example you have quoted. The game against Wolves was a good performance, football-wise. We utterly dominated the game. Bad performances were the last 20 minutes against Everton, or the whole match against Sunderland - and we lost neither match.

We've played good football, in fits and starts and sometimes for a month or two at a time, since Arnesen arrived and started to turn the club around. Since the 2005/06 season, we've promised a great deal. But we've never managed to deliver results on any kind of sustainable basis, except for one cup run.

Homing in on valid statistics and quantifying our performance over time helps to identify the difference between this season's successful team - so far - and previous seasons' attractive, but ultimately disappointing teams.

It's just bullshit when people state that you can prove anything with statistics. It doesn't help to understand anything, it just throws a very important baby out with a few petty pints of bathwater. You can blow a load of smoke and obscure reality by misusing statistics. They're very vulnerable to exploitation by propagandists. That's why I bothered to write the long post above: to try to identify which kinds of statistics are informative and which are misleading.

The OP did a lot of very revealing and provocative work, did it thoroughly and presented it very well. I don't agree with the premise and I don't agree with the conclusion, but it has provoked us to look at the issue and to analyse what has happened.

If we didn't have these statistics, we couldn't have this discussion.

 

[spurs]

Does anyone know how many points we got in 2008 (from Jan to Dec) and how that compares with other teams? I'd guess we'd be 5th.

 

[SpurSince57]

I can tell you that we averaged less than a point a game in 26 matches under Ramos January-October.

I'm with David and others in being less than convinced about the value of comparing results from one season to another. Yes, barring the relegated and promoted sides it's as near a constant as you're likely to get, but there are always going to be variables; Fulham and Wigan under Hodgson and Bruce last season were very different propositions from the sides we took apart in late 2007, for example. Then there are sides against whom we always tend to do well (or badly) across the years, for which there is no particular rhyme nor reason; we've only won one more league game away at Boro than we have at Anfield, for instance. No, I don't understand this either. It's a useful indicator, but with all respect to BOF and the effort he's put in I think it over-complicates matters.

Quite simply, unless it's a freak season like 2004-2005, 70 points or as near as dammit should secure fourth. That's 1.84 PPG. Currently we're on 1.85, so on course and marginally better off than we were this time four years ago. What ultimately sunk our challenge then was a bad run of nine points from seven games; although we recovered, we couldn't make up that deficit sufficiently in the remaining 11 games—or not sufficiently so that we didn't need a win against the Spammers.

People will put forward all sorts of reasons for that slump in January and February, but I'd put it down to losing Mido to the ANC and Davids and Tainio to injury—and I don't think many would disagree that Mido and Davids were never quite the same players afterwards, despite a fantastically gutsy effort from Super Ed playing through pain (for which he got bugger all appreciation from some quarters). We also lost Ledley later on, which was hardly a help. The difference now is that we're much stronger in depth and so should theoretically be able to sustain such losses.

 

[TallBlokePH]

I can tell you that we averaged less than a point a game in 26 matches under Ramos January-October.

I'm with David and others in being less than convinced about the value of comparing results from one season to another. Yes, barring the relegated and promoted sides it's as near a constant as you're likely to get, but there are always going to be variables; Fulham and Wigan under Hodgson and Bruce last season were very different propositions from the sides we took apart in late 2007, for example. Then there are sides against whom we always tend to do well (or badly) across the years, for which there is no particular rhyme nor reason; we've only won one more league game away at Boro than we have at Anfield, for instance. No, I don't understand this either. It's a useful indicator, but with all respect to BOF and the effort he's put in I think it over-complicates matters.

Quite simply, unless it's a freak season like 2004-2005, 70 points or as near as dammit should secure fourth. That's 1.84 PPG. Currently we're on 1.85, so on course and marginally better off than we were this time four years ago. What ultimately sunk our challenge then was a bad run of nine points from seven games; although we recovered, we couldn't make up that deficit sufficiently in the remaining 11 games—or not sufficiently so that we didn't need a win against the Spammers.

People will put forward all sorts of reasons for that slump in January and February, but I'd put it down to losing Mido to the ANC and Davids and Tainio to injury—and I don't think many would disagree that Mido and Davids were never quite the same players afterwards, despite a fantastically gutsy effort from Super Ed playing through pain (for which he got bugger all appreciation from some quarters). We also lost Ledley later on, which was hardly a help. The difference now is that we're much stronger in depth and so should theoretically be able to sustain such losses.

Think that's been fairly well borne out by this season so far - we've had Modders out with a fractured leg for months, Ledley & Woody out a whole bunch and Defoe getting that suspension for his sending off...and we're still 4th!

 

[jolsnogross]

This is a very positive start to the new year on Spurs community. That was a good article and an interesting discussion. I think the improvement in performance and points is there for all to see but it is interesting to see the year-to-year team-to-team comparison. The idea that the table is "hypnotic" and the number of points tells us little compared to who we get points from is a little absurd.

For the whole season to not be an improvement on last year, we'll have to endure an almighty collapse. We'd have to play in the league as we did under Ramos to not improve. It is unlikely, but Villa have shown it's not impossible.

This has been a great season so far. While we've had our luck from time to time, but I can't help thinking about the 6 points dropped at home to Stoke and Wolves. If we didn't drop them, we'd be level with Man U on points. Ifs....