Ange in or out?

[thfcsteff]

Sadly nearly everyone in todays game is a stats or data junkie, never mind that half these things are slanted to show what the writer thinks or wants to try and prove their posistion.

Indeed. I certainly think data and stats are very helpful tools, but that's what they are IMO. Tools. To be used in the field of whatever context is necessary. They are most certainly not definitive answers...

 

[parklane1]

Indeed. I certainly think data and stats are very helpful tools, but that's what they are IMO. Tools. To be used in the field of whatever context is necessary. They are most certainly not definitive answers...

Stats in football are a tool as you say, i used them on many occasions when i wanted to see things. However they rarely tell the whole story and should be viewed by those using them and especially by those who follow them as no more then that.

 

[thfcsteff]

Stats in football are a tool as you say, i used them on many occasions when i wanted to see things. However they rarely tell the whole story and should be viewed by those using them and especially by those who follow them as no more then that.

Absolutely!

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

But why does everyone need piles and piles of data to try and force through a point of view, when the eye test in this case is sufficient? I mean, great, use data, but as shown, when the extrapolated information is placed in specific contexts, people get different results.

Why is it that people simply cannot accept what we have seen since November with regards to the same players playing over and over again? Why is it hard to fathom that when you compress that and match it with not being able to get any respite/rotation, it stresses the body and mind?

I've also noticed that when this point gets spotlit as accurate, then come the 'training session' blamers (we've had it factually established that there has been minimal proper training due to the physical/mental demands right now)...

I think there are several factors at play obviously, but we are seeing a core group of players playing an abnormal amnount of football in a very crunched period of time, more than virtually every other team, and fatigue has been a huge factor. Why is that hard to deny?

Why not use facts as a discussion point? I start from a position where I hear "we haven't been able to rotate" and in thought....hang on a minute. How much rotation do top PL clubs actually do? You get asked to name a club's best XI and you pretty much can name the starting XI of every club. Haaland starts every game. Salah starts every game. Saka starts every game. This is normal. The rotation generally happens with the "supporting cast" players.

So then I looked at the data and it showed that our players are not playing an abnormal amount of minutes.

And this whole debate is about: to what extent are our poor performances down to injuries and fatigue and to what extent they're down to poor coaching and tactics.

Take the Villa game. Started off looking lethargic, slow, off the pace. "Fatigue!" Some may cry. Only we came out second half clearly with a rocket up their a*** and upped the tempo massively, pressed higher and more aggressively and were getting on top of them before being suckered. So I say, bo***ks to fatigue. Fatigue might be a factor 60 mins into a game but we showed we were capable of giving more and the start of the game was poor set up and preparation for me.

There's a school of thought from those like yourself that we can't judge Postecoglu and that we are likely going to push up the table when we have a fit squad.

I on the other hand don't see any reason to believe that to be the case and I also believe that his methods are partly or mostly responsible for the injury problems and lack of energy we have seen in many games this season and last.

 

[metalgear]

Look this data has been batched up with some highly subjective definitions (offensive or defensive? fudge ff - and what is a sprint exactly?). and there are too many outliers suggesting the boundaries have been drawn based on averages but there are ancient prescribed ways to properly define such things.

let’s see the individual actions plotted sensibly for all the players who ended up injured and let’s have a proper analysis not this flimflam.

very good possession - if you correlate that to points on the table now - it still screams inefficient.


interestingly, Bournemouth, Brentford and Chelsea have younger average age



these are sceenshots from this youtube episode of fourfourtwo, interesting take

 

[Lilbaz]

very good possession - if you correlate that to points on the table now - it still screams inefficient.
View attachment 18876

interestingly, Bournemouth, Brentford and Chelsea have younger average age

View attachment 18878

these are sceenshots from this youtube episode of fourfourtwo, interesting take

With the age. Bergvall, gray and u21 players are not a part of the squad. They are b list. Unless they count minutes played?

 

[thfcsteff]

Why not use facts as a discussion point? I start from a position where I hear "we haven't been able to rotate" and in thought....hang on a minute. How much rotation do top PL clubs actually do? You get asked to name a club's best XI and you pretty much can name the starting XI of every club. Haaland starts every game. Salah starts every game. Saka starts every game. This is normal. The rotation generally happens with the "supporting cast" players.

So then I looked at the data and it showed that our players are not playing an abnormal amount of minutes.

And this whole debate is about: to what extent are our poor performances down to injuries and fatigue and to what extent they're down to poor coaching and tactics.

Take the Villa game. Started off looking lethargic, slow, off the pace. "Fatigue!" Some may cry. Only we came out second half clearly with a rocket up their a*** and upped the tempo massively, pressed higher and more aggressively and were getting on top of them before being suckered. So I say, bo***ks to fatigue. Fatigue might be a factor 60 mins into a game but we showed we were capable of giving more and the start of the game was poor set up and preparation for me.

There's a school of thought from those like yourself that we can't judge Postecoglu and that we are likely going to push up the table when we have a fit squad.

I on the other hand don't see any reason to believe that to be the case and I also believe that his methods are partly or mostly responsible for the injury problems and lack of energy we have seen in many games this season and last.

No no, you can judge away.
I just think personally that judgement should be based on all potential angles regarding who/what is being judged.

 

[mudshark]

For any squeaky bottoms out there looking for a bit of copium in these strange times, as the table below shows, in the 29 years since the league was reduced to 20 teams, clubs on 27 or more points after 24 games have only ended up being relegated in 4 seasons (13.8%), Birmingham City (and Blackpool) in 2011 being the most recent examples. I'd say that, as long as we don't have any bad luck — see what I did there? — we really ought to be quite safe. A point a game has generally been enough to maintain a gap to the relegation places.

year    18th-placed club        pts total        pts after 24 games     ppg games 25-38
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024         Luton                 26                   20                   0.43
2023         Leicester             34                   24                   0.71
2022         Burnley               35                   21                   1.00
2021         Fulham                28                   19                   0.64
2020         Bournemouth           34                   23                   0.79
2019         Cardiff               34                   19                   1.07
2018         Swansea               33                   20                   0.93
2017         Hull                  34                   20                   1.00
2016         Nеwcastlе             37                   21                   1.14
2015         Hull                  35                   20                   1.07
2014         Norwich               33                   24                   0.64
2013         Wigan                 36                   21                   1.07
2012         Bolton                36                   20                   1.14
2011         Birmingham            39                   27*                  0.86
2010         Burnley               30                   23                   0.50
2009         Nеwcastlе             34                   24                   0.71
2008         Reading               36                   22                   1.00
2007         Sheffield Utd         38                   24                   1.00
2006         Birmingham            34                   20                   1.00
2005         Crystal Palace        33                   21                   0.86
2004         Leicester             33                   20                   0.93
2003         West Ham              42                   17                   1.79*
2002         Ipswich               36                   27*                  0.64
2001         Mаn City              34                   21                   0.93
2000         Wimbledon             33                   28*                  0.36
1999         Charlton              36                   20                   1.14
1998         Bolton                40                   22                   1.29
1997         Sunderland            40                   29*                  0.79
1996         Mаn City              38                   21                   1.21

 

[braineclipse]

But why does everyone need piles and piles of data to try and force through a point of view, when the eye test in this case is sufficient? I mean, great, use data, but as shown, when the extrapolated information is placed in specific contexts, people get different results.

Why is it that people simply cannot accept what we have seen since November with regards to the same players playing over and over again? Why is it hard to fathom that when you compress that and match it with not being able to get any respite/rotation, it stresses the body and mind?

I've also noticed that when this point gets spotlit as accurate, then come the 'training session' blamers (we've had it factually established that there has been minimal proper training due to the physical/mental demands right now)...

I think there are several factors at play obviously, but we are seeing a core group of players playing an abnormal amnount of football in a very crunched period of time, more than virtually every other team, and fatigue has been a huge factor. Why is that hard to deny?

Agreed. I also think the data since November supports the eye test on this, but it's not really necessary.

And even if some players can play that much and keep performing consistently, doesn't mean that everyone can. Players have different physical characteristics, different roles.

We've clearly been suffering from fatigue. Hopefully a couple of weeks without midweek games, some rest days as has been reported, will help with that.

 

[braineclipse]

Why not use facts as a discussion point? I start from a position where I hear "we haven't been able to rotate" and in thought....hang on a minute. How much rotation do top PL clubs actually do? You get asked to name a club's best XI and you pretty much can name the starting XI of every club. Haaland starts every game. Salah starts every game. Saka starts every game. This is normal. The rotation generally happens with the "supporting cast" players.

So then I looked at the data and it showed that our players are not playing an abnormal amount of minutes.

And this whole debate is about: to what extent are our poor performances down to injuries and fatigue and to what extent they're down to poor coaching and tactics.

Take the Villa game. Started off looking lethargic, slow, off the pace. "Fatigue!" Some may cry. Only we came out second half clearly with a rocket up their a*** and upped the tempo massively, pressed higher and more aggressively and were getting on top of them before being suckered. So I say, bo***ks to fatigue. Fatigue might be a factor 60 mins into a game but we showed we were capable of giving more and the start of the game was poor set up and preparation for me.

There's a school of thought from those like yourself that we can't judge Postecoglu and that we are likely going to push up the table when we have a fit squad.

I on the other hand don't see any reason to believe that to be the case and I also believe that his methods are partly or mostly responsible for the injury problems and lack of energy we have seen in many games this season and last.

I have nothing against using facts or stats as a starting point. But it matters what facts and stats one choose and how one interprets them.

Ange Postecoglou plans reset by giving Tottenham players two days off

Head coach hopes a week to prepare for Man Utd clash, plus an easing of club’s injury crisis, can rejuvenate a beleaguered squad

www.telegraph.co.uk

... since November 22, three Spurs players – Pedro Porro, Archie Gray and Dejan Kulusevski – have played more than 1,700 minutes in all competitions. No other outfield player at any Premier League club has reached such a total in that time (the closest is Manchester United’s Bruno Fernandes, on 1,659 minutes)

In the top five European leagues, too, those Spurs players stand almost alone on the sheer amount of competitive football they have played over the past few months. Since November 22, Porro has played more minutes than any outfielder in Spain, Italy, England, France and Germany. Only Real Madrid’s Federico Valverde has played more minutes than Gray and Kulusevski.

When talking about fatigue over the last couple of months I think those stats are more relevant than looking at stats across the whole season.

Not sure exactly why Salah and Haaland aren't up there, rotation, injuries, fewer games? None the less, they aren't up there with Kulusevski, Gray and Porro.

And if anything those stats along with those you posted probably also indicate that earlier in the season Ange rotated those players quite a bit (what else would explain very high numbers since November 22, but not very high numbers across the season).

Yes, according to data some of our players have been playing an abnormal amount of minutes more or less since our injury crisis started.

 

[johnola]

very good possession - if you correlate that to points on the table now - it still screams inefficient.
View attachment 18876

interestingly, Bournemouth, Brentford and Chelsea have younger average age

View attachment 18878

these are sceenshots from this youtube episode of fourfourtwo, interesting take

Yea very well illustrated and considered opinion.

I note he ends on the graph whose presentation I dispute, it certainly looks damning and perhaps some fans see a smoking gun for injuries but I don’t like heavily subjective and processed data being used to tell a story.

If the axes were labelled defensive effort v attacking effort then perhaps we would have a different emotional reaction to it.

I am embracing this period of adversity for the good that will come out of it eventually.

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

I have nothing against using facts or stats as a starting point. But it matters what facts and stats one choose and how one interprets them.

Ange Postecoglou plans reset by giving Tottenham players two days off

Head coach hopes a week to prepare for Man Utd clash, plus an easing of club’s injury crisis, can rejuvenate a beleaguered squad

www.telegraph.co.uk

When talking about fatigue over the last couple of months I think those stats are more relevant than looking at stats across the whole season.

Not sure exactly why Salah and Haaland aren't up there, rotation, injuries, fewer games? None the less, they aren't up there with Kulusevski, Gray and Porro.

And if anything those stats along with those you posted probably also indicate that earlier in the season Ange rotated those players quite a bit (what else would explain very high numbers since November 22, but not very high numbers across the season).

Yes, according to data some of our players have been playing an abnormal amount of minutes more or less since our injury crisis started.

That's 3 players. And playing 90-100 odd minutes more than the likes of Fernandes, Haaland etc is not necessarily abnormal when you consider we got to the league cup semi therefore that run meant extra fixtures compared to other PL teams. That's my point. 3 players playing a bit more but still within tolerance of "normal" does not explain the poor performances we are seeing by itself.

 

[Mr Gogolak]

One thing, I think, that can definitely be held against Postecoglou is his poor use of squad depth and that's why I'm not buying into the fatigue explanation/excuse, personally.

The only justification for not playing Reguillon, Spence or some of the youngsters is because he felt they weren't good enough. However, since we lost most of our games over the past couple of months, to be brutally honest, I don't think giving more minutes to fringe players would have made much of a difference. Of course, you could argue that hindsight is a wonderful thing but, let's face it, everybody knew some of these games were lost before a ball was even kicked.

If the injury crisis was so bad, then he should have picked his battles instead of playing everyone through the grounds and risking even more injuries. I'd add that he had the luxury to do so, since he was evidently under no pressure. Of course, throwing a game away is never nice but a player you weren't counting on could surprise you (Spence says hello) and keeping the players injury-free should have been a concern at this stage.

 

[Muttley]

One thing, I think, that can definitely be held against Postecoglou is his poor use of squad depth and that's why I'm not buying into the fatigue explanation/excuse, personally.

The only justification for not playing Reguillon, Spence or some of the youngsters is because he felt they weren't good enough. However, since we lost most of our games over the past couple of months, to be brutally honest, I don't think giving more minutes to fringe players would have made much of a difference. Of course, you could argue that hindsight is a wonderful thing but, let's face it, everybody knew some of these games were lost before a ball was even kicked.

If the injury crisis was so bad, then he should have picked his battles instead of playing everyone through the grounds and risking even more injuries. I'd add that he had the luxury to do so, since he was evidently under no pressure. Of course, throwing a game away is never nice but a player you weren't counting on could surprise you (Spence says hello) and keeping the players injury-free should have been a concern at this stage.

I guess I'd have to ask you if Ange did make those rotations and promotion of the kids you talk about would it have been slightly better than we've been through or would it have been radically different?

 

[Finney Is Back]

Why not use facts as a discussion point? I start from a position where I hear "we haven't been able to rotate" and in thought....hang on a minute. How much rotation do top PL clubs actually do? You get asked to name a club's best XI and you pretty much can name the starting XI of every club. Haaland starts every game. Salah starts every game. Saka starts every game. This is normal. The rotation generally happens with the "supporting cast" players.

So then I looked at the data and it showed that our players are not playing an abnormal amount of minutes.

And this whole debate is about: to what extent are our poor performances down to injuries and fatigue and to what extent they're down to poor coaching and tactics.

Take the Villa game. Started off looking lethargic, slow, off the pace. "Fatigue!" Some may cry. Only we came out second half clearly with a rocket up their a*** and upped the tempo massively, pressed higher and more aggressively and were getting on top of them before being suckered. So I say, bo***ks to fatigue. Fatigue might be a factor 60 mins into a game but we showed we were capable of giving more and the start of the game was poor set up and preparation for me.

There's a school of thought from those like yourself that we can't judge Postecoglu and that we are likely going to push up the table when we have a fit squad.

I on the other hand don't see any reason to believe that to be the case and I also believe that his methods are partly or mostly responsible for the injury problems and lack of energy we have seen in many games this season and last.

We came out in the second half with a better shape. In the first half Bergval constantly got caught ahead of the ball because he is still very young and still really poor with his positional sense.

In the second half Kulu went wide right, Bergval moved to Kulu's number 10 kind of position and Bissouma came on and played more alongside Bentancur, giving us a platform to play from and ensuring that Villa could no longer play a single pass to an attacking player sitting between our defence and midfield putting us in trouble every time the ball was turned over.

 

[Finney Is Back]

interestingly, Bournemouth, Brentford and Chelsea have younger average age

View attachment 18878

these are sceenshots from this youtube episode of fourfourtwo, interesting take

Of their squad yes. I wonder whether that is true of their actual team though? Especially with how our team has looked since the injuries really started to bite?

 

[GGyid]

We came out in the second half with a better shape. In the first half Bergval constantly got caught ahead of the ball because he is still very young and still really poor with his positional sense.

In the second half Kulu went wide right, Bergval moved to Kulu's number 10 kind of position and Bissouma came on and played more alongside Bentancur, giving us a platform to play from and ensuring that Villa could no longer play a single pass to an attacking player sitting between our defence and midfield putting us in trouble every time the ball was turned over.

Pretty obvious to anyone watching, so why didn't Ange set it up like that from the start? like against Brentford?

 

[Mr Gogolak]

I guess I'd have to ask you if Ange did make those rotations and promotion of the kids you talk about would it have been slightly better than we've been through or would it have been radically different?

It's a rhethorical question. As for the youngsters, there are basically two philosophies: some people think they should be introduced sparingly and only when the team is doing well; others believe that if you're good enough, you're old enough. From my point of view, giving more minutes to younger players would have been beneficial for all parties.

Now, if you're talking about the results themselves, I'd be tempted to say that they couldn't possibly have been worse.

But let's look at it differently: I keep hearing that our poor results and performances are due to fatigue and a lack of rotation. How could rotating the players - event if that means losing a few games we lost anyway - make the situation any worse? You really think we'be in the relegation zone if Reguilon or Lankshear had played half a dozen more games?

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Pretty obvious to anyone watching, so why didn't Ange set it up like that from the start? like against Brentford?

I think because that set up failed vs pool

 

[Mikey10]

That's 3 players. And playing 90-100 odd minutes more than the likes of Fernandes, Haaland etc is not necessarily abnormal when you consider we got to the league cup semi therefore that run meant extra fixtures compared to other PL teams. That's my point. 3 players playing a bit more but still within tolerance of "normal" does not explain the poor performances we are seeing by itself.

I’m not sure when I’ll stop laughing when I see Silly McSilly Face - but it’s definitely not yet.