OMT ** Tottenham Hotspur v Palace **. 28.12.25 4.30pm

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

That's because they skyed the 2-3 sitters that fell their way. They had some great chances, but couldn't hit the target. We were lucky in that regard. They could have easily scored a couple.

I’m not sure they had sitters. Our offside goals are what I’d describe as sitters were they onside - tap ins around the six yard box.

What were their chances? The Devenny swivel? (The cross for that chance may have been offside) A Lacroix header? Mateta dragging one wide in the first half? The Lacroix one was a big chance as it’s the only one where I thought our closest defender was scrambling to get a good position, and didn’t impact their effort as much. But otherwise, we always had players around them. We also didn’t give away edge of box shots like we had been.

They had a number of efforts which adds to their XG overall but taken individually there wasn’t much where I felt we made mistakes and they should have scored. And I thought we were way more likely to get the second goal.

This followed a similar pattern to the Saudi Sportswashing Machine game and others. We dug in for the first 30 minutes of both halves in particular. We let the opposition tire and then start raising our tempo. It’s not to everyone’s taste, but I think it’s starting to work better. It’s interesting because comms will say Spurs have been overwhelmed and Palace dominated. I didn’t see it like that because they didn’t create anything meaningful, and I think it was absolutely by design on Frank’s part.

 

[Mikey10]

That's because they skyed the 2-3 sitters that fell their way. They had some great chances, but couldn't hit the target. We were lucky in that regard. They could have easily scored a couple.

And we could easily have scored at least a couple more. But we didn’t. And they didn’t score any.

 

[harr1984]

That's because they skyed the 2-3 sitters that fell their way. They had some great chances, but couldn't hit the target. We were lucky in that regard. They could have easily scored a couple.

Maybe the fact we finished the match stronger skewed some people's memories, I don't know can't speak on behalf of anyone. But Palace had more shots inside the area, more shots outside the area and had a higher xG. Their finishing was poor, we can be thankful for that....

 

[Raziel]

Maybe the fact we finished the match stronger skewed some people's memories, I don't know can't speak on behalf of anyone. But Palace had more shots inside the area, more shots outside the area and had a higher xG. Their finishing was poor, we can be thankful for that....

I would agree Palace had more final third opportunities than us, but we have seen that show before (from us), huff and puff but not really decisive.

Our two offside goals and the shot where Wilson hit the post were much more decisive/created plays than anything Palace managed all game. And yes on another day one could have gone in off someone's ass because we let them have too much of the ball, but you really can't watch a game where Vic didn't have a single save that wasn't down his throat, and our defenders (Danso particularly) were just mopping up the hopeful balls punted in and claim they were good.

The real issue with that game was us not pushing on them earlier and killing it off (result worked out but they were there for the taking)

 

[billyiddo]

I would agree Palace had more final third opportunities than us, but we have seen that show before (from us), huff and puff but not really decisive.

Our two offside goals and the shot where Wilson hit the post were much more decisive/created plays than anything Palace managed all game. And yes on another day one could have gone in off someone's ass because we let them have too much of the ball, but you really can't watch a game where Vic didn't have a single save that wasn't down his throat, and our defenders (Danso particularly) were just mopping up the hopeful balls punted in and claim they were good.

The real issue with that game was us not pushing on them earlier and killing it off (result worked out but they were there for the taking)

I thought it was reasonably comfortable
We had the better opportunities at 0-0 and 0-1 and the spells in which we were clicking/showing intent we were much more threatening than anything Palace offered.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

And we could easily have scored at least a couple more. But we didn’t. And they didn’t score any.

The tone of some of the posts on here is frankly laughable mate,

 

[harr1984]

I would agree Palace had more final third opportunities than us, but we have seen that show before (from us), huff and puff but not really decisive.

Our two offside goals and the shot where Wilson hit the post were much more decisive/created plays than anything Palace managed all game. And yes on another day one could have gone in off someone's ass because we let them have too much of the ball, but you really can't watch a game where Vic didn't have a single save that wasn't down his throat, and our defenders (Danso particularly) were just mopping up the hopeful balls punted in and claim they were good.

The real issue with that game was us not pushing on them earlier and killing it off (result worked out but they were there for the taking)

Agree about the two offside goals and that would have helped the xG massively, fine lines. But they had their chances - Not sure how Odobert shooting from outside the box is a more created play than missing the target from here for example:

 

[harr1984]

The tone of some of the posts on here is frankly laughable mate,

Because a poster replied to a post saying Vic wasn't tested was because Palace missed some good chances to test him, which is true. What tone is that exactly?

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Because a poster replied to a post saying Vic wasn't tested was because Palace missed some good chances to test him, which is true. What tone is that exactly?

No, not that specifically but this tone that seems to fester that those who enjoyed the win are somehow reinmagining the game. I find the whole downer on everything even when we win really odd mate.

 

[harr1984]

No, not that specifically but this tone that seems to fester that those who enjoyed the win are somehow reinmagining the game. I find the whole downer on everything even when we win really odd mate.

Ah fair enough. Well there shouldn't be any real downer, just discussion on the game. We aren't even going to go from the form we are in to total football, and there were more positive patterns of play than I've seen since the first couple of weeks of the season.

Hopefully this is the base and we can build from here. The real question is whether we can get any semblance of a performance at home, that's where the real issues are....

 

[Kane]

I think it was a great performance from a good squad who are clicking and putting into practice what their manager wants.

It wasn’t free flowing football all the time. But I think the misnomer about those systems is that it’s always like that for 90 mins, especially away from home. And it isn’t. Playing those systems, they have to dig in at certain points once ahead.

Today, we dug in for the first 30 of both halves. We then clearly upped the intensity once Palace tired and created excellent chances. We could have had 3-0 bar tight offsides. Palace didn’t create much, certainly nothing where we didn’t have a player or two around their attacker disrupting them. But we created excellent chances.

Those chances came at the right times. We looked miles better at the end. And I think we controlled the game. Not in possession or territory, but in whose will gets imposed. And it was ours.

Difference with the Forest game is that we didn’t make stupid mistakes during the digging in periods. Which alters the game state. Here, we dug when we needed to. We upped intensity when we needed to. Very good signs for me.

Good post.

Unlike the Forest game, this was closer to what a blueprint may look like to win an away game in this league. Still a work in progress obv, but from the start we made less errors, got more details right, and gave ourselves a chance with a more mature, professional performance.
For me, 1-0 wins, esp away, are not something to have some kind of an aversion to. Its how the top teams have won titles, going back to Leeds in the late 60's. More recently, even Emirates Marketing Project in their prime had a smattering of 1-0's. Despite all their wealth of talent, Pep knew it wouldn't always be easy and they needed to find other ways to win when they weren't at their best and still get over the line.
Porro looked more solid (even though he had his hands full with their sub). Our subs made a difference. Johnson got involved and looked threatening. Palhinha came on and did what he does well...strong challenges, took a knock and stayed down, experience when needed. Odobert has been discussed, showed well and looked more confident.

 

[Raziel]

Agree about the two offside goals and that would have helped the xG massively, fine lines. But they had their chances - Not sure how Odobert shooting from outside the box is a more created play than missing the target from here for example:

View attachment 21097

My perspective is you are highlighting a player with 3 defenders around him, one obviously having done a good enough job to put him off, having to create power and direction with a header to have any chance of scoring. I don't think that compares to an open play that a winger has found himself with a free shot (yes, further distance) on his preferred foot and actually beat the keeper completely. That and the two offside goals (again, opinion) were better constructed opportunities than Palace made. Glasner himself said it, final action for them wasn't good.

Doesn't mean we played them off the park but I think we are falling into the trap we get into when we do the same thing, huff and puff, have possession without real threat and then bitch when the opposition wins on a transition or set piece goal that it was lucky.

 

[harr1984]

My perspective is you are highlighting a player with 3 defenders around him, one obviously having done a good enough job to put him off, having to create power and direction with a header to have any chance of scoring. I don't think that compares to an open play that a winger has found himself with a free shot (yes, further distance) on his preferred foot and actually beat the keeper completely. That and the two offside goals (again, opinion) were better constructed opportunities than Palace made. Glasner himself said it, final action for them wasn't good.

Doesn't mean we played them off the park but I think we are falling into the trap we get into when we do the same thing, huff and puff, have possession without real threat and then bitch when the opposition wins on a transition or set piece goal that it was lucky.

Yeah that's fair, and I'm not trying to get into a debate about who had the better chances - it was hardly a fluke win. I was just backing up another's claims about why Vicario wasn't tested, if Palace had their shooting boots on he would have been....

 

[Lemonade Money]

No, not that specifically but this tone that seems to fester that those who enjoyed the win are somehow reinmagining the game. I find the whole downer on everything even when we win really odd mate.

I only saw the last 30 minutes, but thought we looked excellent. Passing and tackling were sharp, the Richarlison 'goal' was excellent play from Gray and Kudus, Odobert looks back to his pre-injury best, and what a goal it would have been, if he hadn't hit the post.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

I only saw the last 30 minutes, but thought we looked excellent. Passing and tackling were sharp, the Richarlison 'goal' was excellent play from Gray and Kudus, Odobert looks back to his pre-injury best, and what a goal it would have been, if he hadn't hit the post.

We were fine without being anywhere near spectacular. Away win under lights at Selhurst, taking that any way it comes TBH

 

[Raziel]

We were fine without being anywhere near spectacular. Away win under lights at Selhurst, taking that any way it comes TBH

Agree, it will cause some disagreement because you can frame it many ways

- One is we gave Palace a lot of possession and never managed to consistently keep them under pressure until last 25 or so minutes
- Another view is, 2 offside goals, hit the post from Odobert, a free header from Dragusin and it could have been 5-0 (utterly would have flattered us)

Main takeaway is we worked hard, kept the clean sheet, went home with 3 points .. moving on

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Agree, it will cause some disagreement because you can frame it many ways

- One is we gave Palace a lot of possession and never managed to consistently keep them under pressure until last 25 or so minutes
- Another view is, 2 offside goals, hit the post from Odobert, a free header from Dragusin and it could have been 5-0 (utterly would have flattered us)

Main takeaway is we worked hard, kept the clean sheet, went home with 3 points .. moving on

Of course, the discourse about coming strong as they tire makes me laugh though, why would that be a bad thing? Like the last 20 mins is worth less than any other time in the match

 

[Lemonade Money]

We were fine without being anywhere near spectacular. Away win under lights at Selhurst, taking that any way it comes TBH

No, I would stand by excellent based on watching the last few games. But it was only the last 30, so maybe your opinion is influenced by the first 60?

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

No, I would stand by excellent based on watching the last few games. But it was only the last 30, so maybe your opinion is influenced by the first 60?

I enjoyed the game mate, thought we were the better side

 

[harr1984]

No, I would stand by excellent based on watching the last few games. But it was only the last 30, so maybe your opinion is influenced by the first 60?

Frank got his two subs spot on funnily enough on the hour mark. We looked more in control with Palhinha in there and more threatening with Odobert taking players on creating....