***TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR vs West Ham United OMT***

[spurspinter1]

We've played good football and won football games.

We've played good football and lost football games.

We (fans, Spurs media) don't need to 'get away from' highlighting that if it's a truth.
Ange was really happy with complementing the team himself recently BUT has changed his tune (feeling some pressure?) as he knows full well it's a results business.

Tbh I think these post match interviews still catch him at a time he's processing things. Much like us it was a result that niggled.

"I'm not here to play good football I'm here to win", to be clear that's an Ange quote, not a Conte / Jose one and i don't he's said that because he's caught up in the emotion of one isolated game. That said we've got 1 point from 5 games and being easy on the eye at times doesn't change those results.

There's nothing wrong in enjoying the style of play but I don't think Ange thinks we carried it out well last night, at times it was a training exercise in keeping the ball but not doing much to threaten with it, when you add the lapses in defending (bad luck on the Davies block granted) it's not a great combination, particularly against teams like West Ham. Plaudits are great and all but points would be nice as well.

See I don't think it was great defending by West ham in the first half, I don't think that was their game plan. If it was they really weren't doing it very well, we were cutting through them and at times they didn't know what direction they were facing they were so bewildered.
Our final ball was poor, our finishing not great and when Romero scored I felt a little robbed because we had scored from a dead ball and not from one of the beautiful flowing moves we had put together.
For me we were to relentless, we never allowed them out of their box, we never created space, they would have pushed up because you can't defend like that in your own box and not expect to concede.
The goals we conceded are exactly the kind of goals I would have expected WH to concede on the balance of play in first 30 mins. In an area so congested deflections, poor passes, lapses in concentration are bound to happen.
WH rode their luck at both ends of the pitch and took advantage of it, we didn’t.

I didn't really see them bewildered, they were happy to sit back and let us frantically do not very much. It was great defending in the manner that they were comfortably first to pretty much every ball (apart from the corner of course!).

We cut through them but then passed backwards or found the resulting cross blocked by a West Ham player. We were finding places at awkward angles which I'd put down to the opposition blocking the space fairly well. It's obviously a game of opinion, the relentlessness you speak of just seemed to be us tiring ourselves out, it's not like we created loads of chances like the start of the Villa game. I agree with your last sentence in that West Ham were lucky but they put in the work to earn that luck by being able to soak up pressure.

It's not the end of the world and if anything I'm kind of relieved Ange isn't just claiming bad luck, he clearly wasn't happy with the performance by stating we locked conviction and thinks he can get more out of these players. Everton may not have helped us as Saudi Sportswashing Machine will want to make amends, it's not a must win but 3 points would be well received.

 

[glasgowspur]

xG is sometimes nonsense. West Ham’s is skewed because they effectively had 2 open goals (scoring from the second.) 23 shots is still 23 shots. Whether you consider them good quality or not. We scored 1, Zouma hit the post, Richarlison missed a very clear cut header, Porro forced a good save from Fabianski and we had decent positions squandered by poor decision making and shooting. 23 shots isn’t some anomaly stat…it proves that we created things.

That’s not to say we played well in the second half — it was extremely disappointing. But we most certainly did enough to win that game, and lost it through poor attacking play and 2 horrendously silly goals.

They really had three open goals, WP missed one (an easier chance than Richie into) but was lucky it hit the post and came back out to him.
WP is a great passer but I bet he couldn't play that "pass" with the goal post again.

 

[Dicko]

They were definitely 'bewildered' for much of the first half. They didn't have the time to look up and find a pass and were often just kicking the ball out for throw ins, such was the pressing and Fabianski was just hoofing any back pass away without taking a touch etc.. They were flustered and couldn't string a pass or a counter attack together without coughing up possession.

They did seem more comfortable in the second half though I'll give you that.

 

[Jurgen the German]

Wouldn’t say we battered them but I still don’t know how’ve we played like that against Aston Villa and West Ham but have zero points to show for it. I think the forwards need to do better when we’re on top in games. Should have been out of sight against Chelsea too.

 

[Jurgen the German]

"I'm not here to play good football I'm here to win", to be clear that's an Ange quote, not a Conte / Jose one and i don't he's said that because he's caught up in the emotion of one isolated game. That said we've got 1 point from 5 games and being easy on the eye at times doesn't change those results.

There's nothing wrong in enjoying the style of play but I don't think Ange thinks we carried it out well last night, at times it was a training exercise in keeping the ball but not doing much to threaten with it, when you add the lapses in defending (bad luck on the Davies block granted) it's not a great combination, particularly against teams like West Ham. Plaudits are great and all but points would be nice as well.



I didn't really see them bewildered, they were happy to sit back and let us frantically do not very much. It was great defending in the manner that they were comfortably first to pretty much every ball (apart from the corner of course!).

We cut through them but then passed backwards or found the resulting cross blocked by a West Ham player. We were finding places at awkward angles which I'd put down to the opposition blocking the space fairly well. It's obviously a game of opinion, the relentlessness you speak of just seemed to be us tiring ourselves out, it's not like we created loads of chances like the start of the Villa game. I agree with your last sentence in that West Ham were lucky but they put in the work to earn that luck by being able to soak up pressure.

It's not the end of the world and if anything I'm kind of relieved Ange isn't just claiming bad luck, he clearly wasn't happy with the performance by stating we locked conviction and thinks he can get more out of these players. Everton may not have helped us as Saudi Sportswashing Machine will want to make amends, it's not a must win but 3 points would be well received.

Seems to be free money if you back us to score first then lump all your winnings on the other team to come back and beat us. Same pattern the last few games, Emirates Marketing Project aside. Our record against Saudi Sportswashing Machine is appalling. I can see us beating Everton and Forest but can’t see where the points are gonna come from until Maddison and VDV are back.

 

[Bishop]

xG is sometimes nonsense. West Ham’s is skewed because they effectively had 2 open goals (scoring from the second.) 23 shots is still 23 shots. Whether you consider them good quality or not. We scored 1, Zouma hit the post, Richarlison missed a very clear cut header, Porro forced a good save from Fabianski and we had decent positions squandered by poor decision making and shooting. 23 shots isn’t some anomaly stat…it proves that we created things.

That’s not to say we played well in the second half — it was extremely disappointing. But we most certainly did enough to win that game, and lost it through poor attacking play and 2 horrendously silly goals.

All shots are not created equally. You could have 50 shots they could be brick chances.

An expected goal return of less than 2 goals from 23 shots does support my arguement that no, the "chances" created were not of any quality.

Remember xG isn't rating the quality the attempted finish it's just rating the probability of scoring from that shooting position. All those chances have very probability hence the low xG and factual lack of goals scored.

 

[DeanoAustin]

Seems to be free money if you back us to score first then lump all your winnings on the other team to come back and beat us. Same pattern the last few games, Emirates Marketing Project aside. Our record against Saudi Sportswashing Machine is appalling. I can see us beating Everton and Forest but can’t see where the points are gonna come from until Maddison and VDV are back.

I'm not confident of beating Saudi Sportswashing Machine or Everton to be honest. Forest, I think, we should have too much for.

Dyche and Howe are seasoned managers who know how to dig out results. Unless we start quick and blow them away with goals, I could see a similar pattern in those two games to what we've seen over the last month.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I don't think it's a lack of conviction, it's a lack of quality and ability. Arguably GLC can do better, but the rest of the midfielders and attacking players just aren't eye of the needle threaded through ball players and that's what we needed last night. We needed what Maddison and Sarr to an extent bring to the table.

Truly penetrative passing, you can train a system and you can encourage the players but if they fundementally lack that ability it's not going to happen. You need vision first coupled with genuine top quality technique to pull off the incisive pass and looking at Johnson, Kulu, Hojberg and Bissouma that just isn't in their makeup.

Even GLC who should be able to play them is more of a rotational passer than an incisive one. Until Maddison is back or Sarr can take on more of the brunt of it we will struggle against deeper sat teams. We do have the right type of midfielders in the squad, it's just they injured (Maddison and Bentancur). We saw what Bentancur brought to the table in the first half Vs Villa.

You keep saying gifted for both goals. The first wasn't a gift, it was their shot and it rebounded to them. It wasn't even a double deflection as some are saying it was blocked and then deflected, unfortunate yes but there was no mistake from us, no lazy play, no element of we should have done better there. It was just unlucky not a gift. They 100% deserved that goal because they made it entirely from Thier own endeavour.

The second I agree was a gift, a lazy soft back pass from Udogie that created the chance for them. Yes a gift but their first was not.

The game was a 1-1 and we then created our one genuine quality chance and were unable to finish it. Other than that as I keep saying I don't believe we really threatened mich. Play as we did today all season and we won't score many and we will draw and lose quite a few.

You said our expected goals was close to 2 scored?

One of their goals was a gift (back pass) with a lucky rebound off the post, and the other a freak fluke double pin-ball rechotte. Both lucky openings that created extgremely high probably of scoring - 1-1 with the keeper 5 meters out and an open goal (twice).

Your point was our XG showed we were the worse side. Actually up against a low block all game expecting 2 goals scored isn't so bad. Their XG is vastly improved by the lucky double deflection and backpass creating very clear cut scoring openings.

It does tell the story of how we play. And City play. We look to control the game. Teams then have to defend deep to take us on and stand a chance. Then they limit our chances (xg) and if/when they can break increase their chances of scorings as we're all up the other end and dont have much of a defensive block in place ourselves.

That is how we play. I am all for it. City showing this way of playing can lead to great success. Is there more work to do? Of course, no one thinks we are the finished article. This is day 1.

 

[Bishop]

You said our expected goals was close to 2 scored?

One of their goals was a gift (back pass) with a lucky rebound off the post, and the other a freak fluke double pin-ball rechotte. Both lucky openings that created extgremely high probably of scoring - 1-1 with the keeper 5 meters out and an open goal (twice).

Your point was our XG showed we were the worse side. Actually up against a low block all game expecting 2 goals scored isn't so bad. Their XG is vastly improved by the lucky double deflection and backpass creating very clear cut scoring openings.

It does tell the story of how we play. And City play. We look to control the game. Teams then have to defend deep to take us on and stand a chance. Then they limit our chances (xg) and if/when they can break increase their chances of scorings as we're all up the other end and dont have much of a defensive block in place ourselves.

That is how we play. I am all for it. City showing this way of playing can lead to great success. Is there more work to do? Of course, no one thinks we are the finished article. This is day 1.

You misunderstood my post, I never said we were the worse side. I specifically said we played the better football and we're the better side so I dunno where you're getting that from.

What i did say is we didn't create much of any real quality.

 

[SpurMeUp]

You misunderstood my post, I never said we were the worse side. I specifically said we played the better football and we're the better side so I dunno where you're getting that from.

What i did say is we didn't create much of any real quality.

If we scored 2 goals, as per XG, that should have been enough. Moreover the game opens up and we'd likely have more clear openings. So using XG to say we didn't create is a bit flawed, as it shows in probability stakes, we probably did do enough. Of course we'd like to create more and better chances. But probability wise we were decent, and would have won without conceding unlucky goals. With a stipped out tired squad the performance was decent, impressive even. Of course the citical finishes and defending were lacking.

 

[Bishop]

I disagree. Johnson had the beating of his man but checked back too many times, Deki had multiple opportunities to shoot and didn't take them, instead wanting to take one more touch or one more pass, Bissouma broke through the middle many times and simply stopped as he got close to the box, and even Udogie seemed unwilling to take advantage of some great opportunitues to look for a position. IMO last night we saw West Ham pinned back but certainly not closing their lines/spaces anything like as much as they eventually did after going 2-1 up. Of course we miss Maddison dearly, but I'd say as much for the impudence and swagger he brings (oh alright, the passing too!!!!)...





I agree, my mistake, the first concession was gross misfortune.

PEH and Biss are not those players, agreed. Johnson and Deki aren't 'needle threaders' but each has potential devastation if they'd believe more and think less. Sarr is a wonderful carrier and player overall, but don't think he is necessarily a Pirlo passer.

Yah I don't think Sarr is a Pirlo but his ball carrying and willingness take the ball into tight spaces and his general passing awareness is significantly above everybody else on midfield apart from Maddison and Bentancur.


We've basically missed out 3 best users of the ball in midfield for the last few matches and it has shown.

 

[tommysvr]

All shots are not created equally. You could have 50 shots they could be brick chances.

An expected goal return of less than 2 goals from 23 shots does support my arguement that no, the "chances" created were not of any quality.

Remember xG isn't rating the quality the attempted finish it's just rating the probability of scoring from that shooting position. All those chances have very probability hence the low xG and factual lack of goals scored.

I didn’t say we created 23 good chances either. I said we created enough chances to win it, and it was our poor finishing — combined with 2 brick goals conceded — that is the reason we lost.

 

[DeanoAustin]

If we scored 2 goals, as per XG, that should have been enough. Moreover the game opens up and we'd likely have more clear openings. So using XG to say we didn't create is a bit flawed, as it shows in probability stakes, we probably did do enough. Of course we'd like to create more and better chances. But probability wise we were decent, and would have won without conceding unlucky goals. With a stipped out tired squad the performance was decent, impressive even. Of course the citical finishes and defending were lacking.

Personally, I pay little attention to XG. It's illustrative to an extent but can rarely be taken in isolation to reach any conclusions.

We didn't look like scoring second half. I'd venture a guess that the majority of our XG happened in the first half or, certainly, before they got their second. And that's the damning and problematic thing. Once they got ahead, we never looked like scoring. We could have been there until midnight and we still wouldn't have scored. When we had to go and chase and try to break down West Ham, we didn't even get close to doing it.

 

[tommysvr]

Personally, I pay little attention to XG. It's illustrative to an extent but can rarely be taken in isolation to reach any conclusions.

We didn't look like scoring second half. I'd venture a guess that the majority of our XG happened in the first half or, certainly, before they got their second. And that's the damning and problematic thing. Once they got ahead, we never looked like scoring. We could have been there until midnight and we still wouldn't have scored. When we had to go and chase and try to break down West Ham, we didn't even get close to doing it.

Richarlison’s chance was our best chance all game.

 

[DeanoAustin]

Richarlison’s chance was our best chance all game.

And it was the one good chance we created second half at 1-1. Point still stands that once we went behind, we struggled badly.

 

[tommysvr]

And it was the one good chance we created second half at 1-1. Point still stands that once we went behind, we struggled badly.

Sure, but that’s not what I quoted.

 

[Bishop]

If we scored 2 goals, as per XG, that should have been enough. Moreover the game opens up and we'd likely have more clear openings. So using XG to say we didn't create is a bit flawed, as it shows in probability stakes, we probably did do enough. Of course we'd like to create more and better chances. But probability wise we were decent, and would have won without conceding unlucky goals. With a stipped out tired squad the performance was decent, impressive even. Of course the citical finishes and defending were lacking.

I didn’t say we created 23 good chances either. I said we created enough chances to win it, and it was our poor finishing — combined with 2 brick goals conceded — that is the reason we lost.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Watching that match live never did I feel like we battering them in terms of quality of attacks. Nor did I feel like we missed some gaping chances (even Richy's was a very good chance but you see them missed every now and then, plus it's Richy who is a poor finisher). I just don't recall any other chances were looking back I feel like fudge we really should have scored that one. My feeling after Villa was totally different we genuinely tore them apart at times and were a pass away from open goals multiple times. Yesterday I just didn't feel that with my eyes and the stats don't support it either.

You think poor finishing I think they were poor quality of chances in the first place. Also remember xG is a cumulative stat, 23 "chances" that add up to 1.78 is just a poor ratio, very poor. That's 0.07 xG per chance. Give that Richarlison's chance was relatively high in xG the actual rate for the rest of the chances is even lower. They just weren't quality chances.

Now I'm not a stats merchant I'm all about the eye test but I'll use stats to query what I see with my eyes so ultimately all the xG chat in the world isn't going change my opinion that what I saw with my eyes were few chances and few of any quality.

 

[DeanoAustin]

Sure, but that’s not what I quoted.

Read the bit you bolded.

 

[tommysvr]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Watching that match live never did I feel like we battering them in terms of quality of attacks.

I gave up here because you must be deliberately misreading what I’m writing at this point.

 

[Bishop]

I gave up here because you must be deliberately misreading what I’m writing at this point.

You're the one misreading. I'm giving my thoughts I did not do a point for point rebuttal of what you said. You don't need to read what I'm saying as a absolutely direct response to your post, but if you do read you will see where I do comment about the number of chances and the quality chance. I don't know why you're ignoring that part to jump on the more general part that wasn't a comment directly on what you've said?

My post was in response to two different people, so why are you catching feelings about one part that wasn't even directly to you?