Match Threads Spurs vs Leicester - Match Thread

[Timberwolf]

Even though that looked like they had some good chances those shots mostly were awful, there was one in the 2nd half by Praet that was on the left side, he smashed it and it was still 10 yards wide on that left side. Probably in the game i would say 1-2 felt dangerous and one was a free kick. We completely blocked them off that they popped the ball around and were just smashing long distance shots. Reminded me of the days when we had AVB. All the possession and long range shots and we would lose.

Yeah, the 2 truly big chances I recall were the Vardy backheel and the Perez chest and volley, both of which would've required something quite special to pull off. The Perez chance in particular required a pinpoint cross followed by a tremendous bit of skill and in terms of pure Xg (yes I went there) I imagine it was pretty low considering the difficulty of the technique.

 

[spursfan77]

Very similar to Newcastle.
They scored 0 goals from 20+ attempts with 6 on target (Thanks Hugo)
We scored 3 goals from 7 attempts with just 3 on target (Thanks Harry)

And the lowest possession stat I remember from Spurs in a Prem. game. (29%)
certainly in a game we won.
Stats from BBC.
Calling all spreadsheet owners to confirm.

I've never got the addiction to possession stats. It was actually Mourinho back when he was Inter manager and they beat Barcelona in the CL semi that really made me wake up to it. I've watched too many games of us under Poch passing the ball from side to side between the back 4 and midfield and not getting anywhere to tell me that they are utter nonsense.

I would say that some of our players did look nervous in possession yesterday, but the midfield isn't on form and I think that is obviously where the problem stems from. Not something to overtly worry about when we are winning games though and something that can be improved with good purchases in the summer. Although we are yet to be linked to that type of midfielder.

 

[14/04/91]

The past couple of games have certainly given me an optimism that was pretty much non-existent post-Sheff Utd & Bournemouth. I was seriously worried that the players weren't buying into whatever Mourinho was trying to do; our movement and fluidity in particular was shocking.

It's clear we're more of a counter-attacking side and I do still worry we need more against defensive set-ups but the fact we actually look like a team is encouraging. One or two additions in the window, hopefully players (GLC & Kane in particular) at full fitness come the start of the season and we might be onto something. The fact we're only just outside the top 4 with the season we've had still amazes me!

 

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

Yeah, the 2 truly big chances I recall were the Vardy backheel and the Perez chest and volley, both of which would've required something quite special to pull off. The Perez chance in particular required a pinpoint cross followed by a tremendous bit of skill and in terms of pure Xg (yes I went there) I imagine it was pretty low considering the difficulty of the technique.

Think I saw they had 2.16 xg and we had 0.58 or close to it.

 

[Timberwolf]

Think I saw they had 2.16 xg and we had 0.58 or close to it.

The one I saw said they had 1.2 and we had 0.77 (understat.com)

Come to think of it Xg might actually be quite a bad measure of that particular shot, because typically a shot from that range in the box will have a high chance of going in but the technique to take such a powerful cross on his chest and get a clean volley on target are much more difficult. I don't know if they have the ability to measure those aspects of a chance.

I guess my point was, if Xg could accurately measure the true difficulty of that chance, it should be low.

(Just realised I've inadvertently shown why Xg is a bit of a shit tool)

 

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

The one I saw said they had 1.2 and we had 0.77 (understat.com)

Come to think of it Xg might actually be quite a bad measure of that particular shot, because typically a shot from that range in the box will have a high chance of going in but the technique to take such a powerful cross on his chest and get a clean volley on target are much more difficult. I don't know if they have the ability to measure those aspects of a chance.

I guess my point was, if Xg could accurately measure the true difficulty of that chance, it should be low.

think I saw it on motd last night. people do put a lot of weight behind that stat. Not sure myself but it does seem a more accurate precursor for a particular result than possession.

 

[C0YS]

The one I saw said they had 1.2 and we had 0.77 (understat.com)

Come to think of it Xg might actually be quite a bad measure of that particular shot, because typically a shot from that range in the box will have a high chance of going in but the technique to take such a powerful cross on his chest and get a clean volley on target are much more difficult. I don't know if they have the ability to measure those aspects of a chance.

I guess my point was, if Xg could accurately measure the true difficulty of that chance, it should be low.

(Just realised I've inadvertently shown why Xg is a bit of a shit tool)

Yeh I found 1.2 vs 0.77 and 1.4 vs 1.

So, looking at understat you can see the breakdown. Vardy had 0.55 xG everyone else had less than 0.15. Basically there xG got as high as 1.2 on the basis of lots of low percentage pot shots.

xG has a lot of weaknesses and is bad at interpreting match outcomes. The table would look very different with xG. Man city would be run away champions, Newcastle would be rock bottom. We would be 10th just ahead of Sheffield utd in 11th and Southampton would be currently 7th.

xG doesn't take into account several things like. Player quality in taking chances but most importantly context. If you score 3 first half goals, even with a fairly low xG and sit back, ofcourse the other team will add to their xG while the defending team will stay static. xG can be useful in seeing how players are performing, or as a way to use the data for match strategy or analysis of chance creation. It is pretty meaningless in actually measuring who 'deserves' to win.

 

[Crow]

Harry Kane was at his best. His second is worth tracking down the highlights for.

Yeah I tracked down the highlights, both goals were superbly taken. The second was spectacular but that first one was masterfully finished with the left foot. Absolutely world class!

 

[Ionman34]

The one I saw said they had 1.2 and we had 0.77 (understat.com)

Come to think of it Xg might actually be quite a bad measure of that particular shot, because typically a shot from that range in the box will have a high chance of going in but the technique to take such a powerful cross on his chest and get a clean volley on target are much more difficult. I don't know if they have the ability to measure those aspects of a chance.

I guess my point was, if Xg could accurately measure the true difficulty of that chance, it should be low.

(Just realised I've inadvertently shown why Xg is a bit of a shit tool)

It's not, but it's not flawless either, no stat metric is.

I saw the same Xg for the match you did and was a tad mystified as to why ours was so low and theirs so high, but I don't know how they measure so can't really comment.

What I will say is that I felt ours should have been over 1 at least, as Kane's 1st should have been high, as should Son's, as he forced a save from Schmeichel every bit as good as Hugo's from Perez. I can understand Kane's 2nd scoring low and Son's as it was a deflection, but I'd have also scored Iheanacho's and Vardy's as low as Kane's 2nd because they were speculative and were fairly routine. I'd include Harvey Barnes' in the same bracket.

So, personally, I'd have had the Xg for both a bit closer, though I do think it fair that theirs would be higher than ours.

 

[Laboog]

since Xg is being discussed here, I thought it would be a good place to ask my question. I just started looking at Xg just because I hear it often and was curious, what does it mean when it says in the table 9.12 then in green it says -3.88 ? Link below is the table I am talking about.

EPL xG Table and Scorers for the 2024/2025 season | Understat.com

xG table of EPL standings and top scorers for the 2024/2025 season, also tables from past seasons and other European football leagues.

understat.com

 

[Rob]

since Xg is being discussed here, I thought it would be a good place to ask my question. I just started looking at Xg just because I hear it often and was curious, what does it mean when it says in the table 9.12 then in green it says -3.88 ? Link below is the table I am talking about.

EPL xG Table and Scorers for the 2024/2025 season | Understat.com

xG table of EPL standings and top scorers for the 2024/2025 season, also tables from past seasons and other European football leagues.

understat.com

The reds/green are the difference between XG and relatity. Looka at Liverpools goals scored (77) and there XG is 73.17 with -3.83. That means their XG is 3.83 less than they actually got. i.e. they beat the XG (so are green).

 

[C0YS]

It's not, but it's not flawless either, no stat metric is.

I saw the same Xg for the match you did and was a tad mystified as to why ours was so low and theirs so high, but I don't know how they measure so can't really comment.

What I will say is that I felt ours should have been over 1 at least, as Kane's 1st should have been high, as should Son's, as he forced a save from Schmeichel every bit as good as Hugo's from Perez. I can understand Kane's 2nd scoring low and Son's as it was a deflection, but I'd have also scored Iheanacho's and Vardy's as low as Kane's 2nd because they were speculative and were fairly routine. I'd include Harvey Barnes' in the same bracket.

So, personally, I'd have had the Xg for both a bit closer, though I do think it fair that theirs would be higher than ours.

I think xG for understanding how to win is unhelpful. BUt has you say it has its uses.

It's not about judgement though, it's pure probability. If you get a chance in that area, in similar conditions it = 10% goal chance blablabla. So goalkeeper saves etc, is really irrelevant. Perez's shot was around 14% chance of scoring or less and Son's was probably similar. Leicester got a high exG because they had a lot more shots. Yes those shots only added less than 5% each, but that adds up. Speculative efforts add up, and it's as simple as that.

But, again, this is why exG is not that helpful for this game, because if Leicester scored. Or were even only 1-0 up you would have likely seen us make more chances and not allow leicester to try speculative shots from range as much. We played the numbers in the end. Was kind of like, you might score, but I'll let you have a go because you almost certainly wont, and we will just sit back and absorb anything you throw at us. You can do that at 3-0 up. It's much more risky in a tighter game where we probably would have made more of an effort to hit them on the break.

 

[hughy]

I'd be happy if I never heard xG mentioned again, but that's just me.

 

[Locotoro]

This boils down to a simple question...what is more important in football, defence or attack?

Different teams defend in different ways, it's not only the defensive structure when you don't have the ball. Barcelona used to defend by keeping the ball with their backline and 3 CMs, they used that possession to allow the other players to get into position and to have a rest from the closing down they would do when they lost the ball. Whereas, in Italy it's quite common to sit back with a back 5 and an anchor man and soak up the pressure waiting for a counter. The aim is the same: to stop the opposition from scoring against you.

Famous quote by Sir Alex Ferguson, probably the most successful club manager in the history of the sport: " A good attack wins you games...a good defence wins you titles".

Whilst I appreciate defence and attack is not a zero sum game, there is definitely a trade off between the two. If you have a shitty attack, you just won't win but if you have a shitty defence you're likely to get humiliated

 

[John48]

The truth is the best teams can do both well, attack & defence that is.

Take Barca at their best, their attack was awesome, but when they lost the ball their defence was equally as awesome.

There's no doubt we have good attacking potential, but our defending still leaves a lot to be desired & at times yesterday was quite desperate.

 

[Locotoro]

The truth is the best teams can do both well, attack & defence that is.

Take Barca at their best, their attack was awesome, but when they lost the ball their defence was equally as awesome.

There's no doubt we have good attacking potential, but our defending still leaves a lot to be desired & at times yesterday was quite desperate.

I thought we were mostly comfortable yesterday. I can remember only 2 chances at close range and the rest were speculative.

I agree that the best teams could do both but we are far from being close to that at the moment. When JM took over our team was doing neither particularly well so I guess it's priorities first

 

[Pat Rice Spurs fan]

The past couple of games have certainly given me an optimism that was pretty much non-existent post-Sheff Utd & Bournemouth. I was seriously worried that the players weren't buying into whatever Mourinho was trying to do; our movement and fluidity in particular was shocking.

It's clear we're more of a counter-attacking side and I do still worry we need more against defensive set-ups but the fact we actually look like a team is encouraging. One or two additions in the window, hopefully players (GLC & Kane in particular) at full fitness come the start of the season and we might be onto something. The fact we're only just outside the top 4 with the season we've had still amazes me!

My thoughts, perfectly spelled out. Thank you

 

[jimbo]

With our resources we don't stand much chance of being one of the best attacking sides in the league. Quality attackers are expensive, and we can't assemble a squad like Man City's, Man Utd's or, apparently, Chelsea's.
Quality defenders are cheaper, and you don't necessarily need the best in the world because organisation is a massive part of defending well.
This is where I think Jose is trying to lay a foundation for a way of playing that will bring success for us within the restrictions we have. We can't be Barca or Juve or City or whoever else when we don't have the finances/will to spend so we have to do things differently.

Obviously, we still need to create chances and score goals. There are two ways to make the pitch bigger and open up opportunities - horizontally and vertically. It's pretty obvious we are taking the vertical option. This is all about finding a way to win without trying to go toe-to-toe with the big spenders, and we're only seeing the beginnings of it at the moment. Defend solidly, win the ball and break quickly.

There's the possibility of opportunity next season, with the extended European tournaments and short break. If we can get off to a strong start we could do well. Just have to wait and see.