• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Stats Thread

Throwback to 1990, the last time Spurs managed a ten game unbeaten start to the season

................

The 1990/91 season saw Spurs record a start of 10 games without defeat, with a side boasting the likes of Gary Linkeker, Paul Gascoigne and Gary Mabbutt.

Those early games produced 6 wins, 4 draws, 0 losses, with 17 goals scored and four conceded.

Highlights included a 2-0 win at Leeds, a 2-1 win away to future FA Cup Final opponents Nottingham Forest, as well as big home victories against Emirates Marketing Project and Sheffield United. There was also a creditable 0-0 draw at Highbury.

Spurs lost their eleventh game of the season, at home to title holders Liverpool. Disappointingly, Tottenham's impressive early form would falter massively in the second half of the season, with Terry Venable's group winning just three of their final 21 league matches having been third after 17 games. They ended up a disappointing 10th, with Arsenal winning the league and Liverpool runners up. Lineker and Gascoigne were the club's top scorers with 19 goals each.

Worryingly for Spurs, their disappointing final position in 1991 came, not only after an impressive start, but also a third place finish the year before. Though Tottenham will be adamant that a Champions league spot is the minimum Mauricio Pochettino's side walk away with this year, El Tel's exciting 90s side did at least lift the FA Cup - the last time the North Londoners have won the competition.

However, this Tottenham team are a different beast compared to the performances of the 1990s, where form was temperamental despite some outstanding attacking players at the club's disposal. Crucially in that decade, managerial continuity and philosophy was often a problem, something Pochettino has used to turn Spurs into one of the best teams in the division over the last couple of campaigns.

The club's best ever record is 16 matches before defeat, managed at the start of the double-winning 1960-61 season. If Spurs manage that with a tough November on the horizon, they may find themselves title favourites.

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2016/10/2...time-spurs-managed-a-nine-game-unbeat/page/1/

---------------------------------

This news came before we drew with Leicester. But there are a few important facts to take note :
- the last time we were unbeaten in 10 matches from the start of the season in 1990/91, we finished in mid table and Arsenal won the league
- the last time we were unbeaten for more than 10 matches from the start of the season in 1960/61, we won the league and Arsenal finished in mid table

So, it is a MUST to get at least a draw against Arsenal when we play them next !
 
H'mm. We've been here before. Last time Spurs won 6, drew 6 of their first 12 games was 1959-60. That season we finished in third place just 2pts adrift of champions Burnley having looked favourites until Easter to win the League.

Of course we all know what happened the following season ...
 
At Christmas, the Telegraph reported the following:

Total Shots

1 Spurs 312
2 Liverpool301
3 City 283
4 Utd 269
5 Chelsea 261

Set Piece Goals

1 City 4
2 Swansea 3
3 West Brom 3
4 Liverpool 3
5 Arsenal 3


Goals in first ten minutes

1 Chelsea 4
2 West Brom 3
3 City 3
4 Swansea 2
5 Watford 2

Goals in last 10 mins

1 City 9
2 Arsenal 8
3 Palace 8
4 Spurs 5
5 Liverpool 5

I think this is significant and shows we are slow starters to games and not the strongest finishers either (2 of those late goals came against Wet spam).

However, more importantly, the areas we simply must address are our conversion rate and goals from set pieces. For example, we have had 51 more shots than Chelsea but they have scored 35 goals to our 29.

It is abundantly clear to me where our weaknesses lie - and this must be addressed in the second half of the season if we are to improve on last season.

Fingers crossed that Poch sees this too.
 
Hmm. So we're middle of the road in terms of our intensity (peaking at some point between the first and last ten minutes) and goals from set pieces - conversely, we're well out in front of the pack in terms of shots taken.

If you're an opponent, defending against this approach, what would your strategy be? Restricting us to long shots in the hope that we don't convert one of the *many* that we send towards goal every game? Seems risky considering that we evidently do convert enough to keep us cruising above all bar four teams. Let us have the ball, because intricate build-up play isn't something we do? Sounds feasible, but with players like Eriksen, Alli and Lamela around, there's always a chance that said approach fails.

On the other hand, packing the middle to send us out wide and going at us in the first ten minutes of each half sounds like something that opponents would benefit from doing - we don't score many from set-pieces, so conceding corners isn't as dangerous, and we rarely get crosses into the box that are good enough to result in headers that work the goalkeeper. Plus, attacking us in the early stages of each half seems fitting given our relative lack of intensity in those moments.

Mostly, I'm trying to figure out why teams approach us in the manner that they do - as a more 'winnable' game relative to any of the other top six sides. Evidently, the stats are revealing some weaknesses in our play that teams feel they can exploit, *even as* we end up winning or gaining points from the majority of our fixtures anyway.
 
DubaiSpur said:
Hmm. So we're middle of the road in terms of our intensity (peaking at some point between the first and last ten minutes) and goals from set pieces - conversely, we're well out in front of the pack in terms of shots taken.

If you're an opponent, defending against this approach, what would your strategy be? Restricting us to long shots in the hope that we don't convert one of the *many* that we send towards goal every game? Seems risky considering that we evidently do convert enough to keep us cruising above all bar four teams. Let us have the ball, because intricate build-up play isn't something we do? Sounds feasible, but with players like Eriksen, Alli and Lamela around, there's always a chance that said approach fails.

On the other hand, packing the middle to send us out wide and going at us in the first ten minutes of each half sounds like something that opponents would benefit from doing - we don't score many from set-pieces, so conceding corners isn't as dangerous, and we rarely get crosses into the box that are good enough to result in headers that work the goalkeeper. Plus, attacking us in the early stages of each half seems fitting given our relative lack of intensity in those moments.

Mostly, I'm trying to figure out why teams approach us in the manner that they do - as a more 'winnable' game relative to any of the other top six sides. Evidently, the stats are revealing some weaknesses in our play that teams feel they can exploit, *even as* we end up winning or gaining points from the majority of our fixtures anyway.
Click to expand...

We haven't came out if the blocks and hit anyone hard and fast yet goal wise but we have performance wise in games like Boro, City and Chelsea

We don't sustain it for 90 minutes at the moment

Teams will adjust their game based on who they have available too don't forget @DubaiSpur so that limits their options
 
DubaiSpur said:
Mostly, I'm trying to figure out why teams approach us in the manner that they do - as a more 'winnable' game relative to any of the other top six sides. Evidently, the stats are revealing some weaknesses in our play that teams feel they can exploit, *even as* we end up winning or gaining points from the majority of our fixtures anyway.
Click to expand...
Really which teams? where is your evidence?
 
Robspur12 said:
Really which teams? where is your evidence?
Click to expand...

Most bottom-half teams (off the top of my head - West Brom, Burnley, Bournemouth and Palace in just the recent past) , based on watching them (in turn) at WHL, the Emirates, Stamford Bridge, Anfield and the Etihad, as well as at their home grounds. We get aggressively pressed during certain periods more than they do, get countered against considerably more than they do, and counter-attacks involve quite a few more players when it comes to us as opposed to when these teams are facing, say, Arsenal. Look at West Brom today as an example; we get the pressure ratcheted up against us a lot more than the miserably abject, lifeless display they gave against Arsenal, and it shows when it comes to West Brom's record against us when compared to their record against Arsenal - we've only managed to beat them once since Pulis took over (iirc), with one loss and three draws in the five games we've played. The same time period has seen Arsenal win four times while West Brom have only won once. You could put that down to the difference in quality between us and Arsenal, but I don't think that explains the whole story.

Bedfordspurs said:
We haven't came out if the blocks and hit anyone hard and fast yet goal wise but we have performance wise in games like Boro, City and Chelsea

We don't sustain it for 90 minutes at the moment

Teams will adjust their game based on who they have available too don't forget @DubaiSpur so that limits their options
Click to expand...

Well, this is the Premier League, the richest league in the world barring the Chinese Super League. Most clubs have relatively deep squads compared to their European counter-parts - certainly deep enough to allow them to execute tactical plans with second-choice XIs to a large extent. That's why I assume that these clubs can counter us with the same intensity that they use to counter others - only difference being that they seem to be doing it more against us when compared to against other teams.
 
Once again stats display the bleedin' obvious, we don't put away enough of our chances and Eriksen free kicks have not been as good so far. Breaking News bears brick in the woods.
 
I don't think those teams approach us as a more winnable game, it's more that we don't take our early chances and they find themselves still in the game and gain confidence from that.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
Once again stats display the bleedin' obvious, we don't put away enough of our chances and Eriksen free kicks have not been as good so far. Breaking News bears brick in the woods.
Click to expand...

Or corners.

I'm sorry if you already knew we have had more than 50 more shots than Chelsea but have scored six less goals.

And BTW bears don't only brick in the woods
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
Once again stats display the bleedin' obvious, we don't put away enough of our chances and Eriksen free kicks have not been as good so far. Breaking News bears brick in the woods.
Click to expand...

Don't get the obesssion with Erisken scoring free kicks

The best player in the world average 3 a season (ronaldo)

In the prem how many goals were scored from free kicks yesterday???

How many last weekend?

There so hard to score from its ridiculous to expect anything other than a miss IMO
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Don't get the obesssion with Erisken scoring free kicks

The best player in the world average 3 a season (ronaldo)

In the prem how many goals were scored from free kicks yesterday???

How many last weekend?

There so hard to score from its ridiculous to expect anything other than a miss IMO
Click to expand...

Could not agree more, Goldenballs was praised for being a GREAT free kick taker when in all reality he missed far more then he scored from.
 
DubaiSpur said:
Most bottom-half teams (off the top of my head - West Brom, Burnley, Bournemouth and Palace in just the recent past) , based on watching them (in turn) at WHL, the Emirates, Stamford Bridge, Anfield and the Etihad, as well as at their home grounds. We get aggressively pressed during certain periods more than they do, get countered against considerably more than they do, and counter-attacks involve quite a few more players when it comes to us as opposed to when these teams are facing, say, Arsenal. Look at West Brom today as an example; we get the pressure ratcheted up against us a lot more than the miserably abject, lifeless display they gave against Arsenal, and it shows when it comes to West Brom's record against us when compared to their record against Arsenal - we've only managed to beat them once since Pulis took over (iirc), with one loss and three draws in the five games we've played. The same time period has seen Arsenal win four times while West Brom have only won once. You could put that down to the difference in quality between us and Arsenal, but I don't think that explains the whole story.
Click to expand...

We haven't played either Bournemouth or west brom at the lane. We drew away at both Bournemouth and West Brom. Liverpool lost away at both Burnley and Bournemouth, Arsenal should have lost at Middlesbrough and were lucky to get away with a draw. Palace had some great chances against Chelsea before succumbing to a single goal. Didn't see these teams any more over-awed at the top 4 than us.

I saw both Burnley and Crystal Palace as fairly routine wins. Stats against Burnley


Spurs Burnley
Goal Attempts 30 5
On Target 9 2
Corners 11 2
Possession 59.9 % 40.1

Stats against Palace

Spurs Crystal Palace
Shots 20 10
On target 5 2
Corners 10 4
Possession 57 % 43

Those stats don't really paint a picture of Spurs being pressed back aggressively. What it seems you are actually irritated about is Arsenal beating west brom (at home) when we failed to beat them away despite having more than enough chances to put them away first half. That does not in itself suggest lower half teams see us as a more winnable option than the teams above us at the Lane, where we are unbeaten.

Now you would have a point if you said that we were not as clinical in our finishing as those teams above us which consequently gives opposing teams more chance to nick a result against us.
 
Last edited:
This is hardly surprising. We always start the season slowly and finish the season badly. A good example is last season. Also, we seldom have players who can score from free kicks consistently. Eriksen was scoring from freekicks in his first 2 seasons but his free kicks have been shyte for the past 2 seasons now.
 
Spurs7891 said:
This is hardly surprising. We always start the season slowly and finish the season badly. A good example is last season. Also, we seldom have players who can score from free kicks consistently. Eriksen was scoring from freekicks in his first 2 seasons but his free kicks have been shyte for the past 2 seasons now.
Click to expand...

I'll ask again but who scores regularly from free kicks????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back