SC's Tactical Autopsy thread

[StartingPrice]

...



[Duplicate - edit not working]

 

[Shadydan]

I don't care what Adam Bate or Opta Joe propose.

We are the most boring team in the Premier League and I have no faith in us scoring in any game that we play.

We are predictable, easy to contain and look more like making a defensive mistake than producing a moment of attacking brilliance.

I said last season we were the furthest we have been from the Champions League in recent years, but seemingly we are intent on removing ourselves from the Champions League equation altogether.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

and I'm afraid Bentaleb fir me, whatever else his strong points are (and there are plenty) is not a viable replacement in our system. He would suit a double pivot. But even in that position he's not at the same level as the rest of team at the moment. Unfortunately he just seems to suffer a brain fart every game.

As a keen compiler of brain farts, did you notice Dembele's on our D at 83 minutes, or Dier's a couple of minutes later (and earlier around the 12th min). Or Walker's doozy on 63 inside our own area ?

 

[Matthew Wyatt]

@Bus-Conductor, I appreciate your argument comparing Dembele (unfavourably) to Bentaleb as an effective CM in our system, but I can't help but feel your stats-based approach to analysis misses what for want of a better term I'll call intangibles. As one example I refer you to that FourFourTwo Q&A with Dele Alli where, when asked who he wants on his side in training games, unhesitatingly names Dembele. One imagines Dembele inspires such confidence in our other young stars too, and you can't measure that.

I also think his running with the ball, while, granted, not as quick at advancing play as sharp forward passing, is novel and less predictable than the passing game, like when the first cumbersome tanks rolled onto the battlefield in WW1. The 'enemy' is momentarily bemused.

He's different but he's far from redundant in that role in our system.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

@Bus-Conductor, I appreciate your argument comparing Dembele (unfavourably) to Bentaleb as an effective CM in our system, but I can't help but feel your stats-based approach to analysis misses what for want of a better term I'll call intangibles. As one example I refer you to that FourFourTwo Q&A with Dele Alli where, when asked who he wants on his side in training games, unhesitatingly names Dembele. One imagines Dembele inspires such confidence in our other young stars too, and you can't measure that.

I also think his running with the ball, while, granted, not as quick at advancing play as sharp forward passing, is novel and less predictable than the passing game, like when the first cumbersome tanks rolled onto the battlefield in WW1. The 'enemy' is momentarily bemused.

He's different but he's far from redundant in that role in our system.

I haven't said he's redundant. I haven't even said he compares unfavourably with Bentaleb in every aspect, I have just said I think he isn't necessarily the most symbiotic partner for Dier for all occasions.

I suggested the possibility of pairing either Dier/Bentsleb or Dembele/Mason as maybe better blends of skills, whilst keeping good right/left balance.

 

[Matthew Wyatt]

I haven't said he's redundant. I haven't even said he compares unfavourably with Bentaleb in every aspect, I have just said I think he isn't necessarily the most symbiotic partner for Dier for all occasions.

I suggested the possibility of pairing either Dier/Bentsleb or Dembele/Mason as maybe better blends of skills, whilst keeping good right/left balance.

I think you've backtracked a tad, which is fine. Seemed neither Dier nor Dembele suited the football team you've envisaged the past couple of years, but rather a pair of dynamic pass-and-movers like, say, Bentaleb, Mason, Carroll, Eriksen or Modric. Sorry if I'm mistaken, but I see a purist belatedly and reluctantly prepared to get a bit dirty.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I think you've backtracked a tad, which is fine. Seemed neither Dier nor Dembele suited the football team you've envisaged the past couple of years, but rather a pair of dynamic pass-and-movers like, say, Bentaleb, Mason, Carroll, Eriksen or Modric. Sorry if I'm mistaken, but I see a purist belatedly and reluctantly prepared to get a bit dirty.

Not at all, as most will tell you, I am the champion of the busy ****. Nothing I like more than a good footballing busy ****. But it's about blend and balance. I'm not backtracking, if you read what I said above to Sloth for example you will see I said the same. I get why, in a system like ours a more disciplined player can be a necessity. Don't think it's a necessity for every single game and don't always think Dier is as good at it as everyone says, but he's been pretty good for most of the season, and credit to him and Poch, better than I thought he would be.

I was critical of Modric being played in our "Redknapp" CM2, because there wasn't the work ethic around him to compensate. And as much as I like some of Carroll's qualities, I'd never have him ahead of Bentaleb in a CM2, and I'd only play Carroll in a CM2 with a real busy **** next to him because I think Carroll can get a bit lost and fail to impose himself on a game the way the likes of Bentaleb and Mason can. And I'd never play Eriksen in a CM2.

 

[Matthew Wyatt]

Not at all, as most will tell you, I am the champion of the busy ****. Nothing I like more than a good footballing busy ****. But it's about blend and balance. I'm not backtracking, if you read what I said above to Sloth for example you will see I said the same. I get why, in a system like ours a more disciplined player can be a necessity. Don't think it's a necessity for every single game and don't always think Dier is as good at it as everyone says, but he's been pretty good for most of the season, and credit to him and Poch, better than I thought he would be.

I was critical of Modric being played in our "Redknapp" CM2, because there wasn't the work ethic around him to compensate. And as much as I like some of Carroll's qualities, I'd never have him ahead of Bentaleb in a CM2, and I'd only play Carroll in a CM2 with a real busy **** next to him because I think Carroll can get a bit lost and fail to impose himself on a game the way the likes of Bentaleb and Mason can. And I'd never play Eriksen in a CM2.

See, I'd like to see Eriksen play deeper once he's become the player I think he can but he'd still need the busiest of all ****s next to him in a CM2. But that's another story.

So ok, the busy ****, I get that now, but I don't see the requisite traits in either Bentaleb, Mason or Carroll. I'm thinking Robson, Keane, Vieira -- is that the sort of player you mean?

Anyway, I agree Dier isn't dynamic enough to be the **** and although I'm a big fan I'd like him to be an option rather than a shoo-in. I think Alli might best fill the role as he matures. Can't see the grit in the others.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

See, I'd like to see Eriksen play deeper once he's become the player I think he can but he'd still need the busiest of all ****s next to him in a CM2. But that's another story.

So ok, the busy ****, I get that now, but I don't see the requisite traits in either Bentaleb, Mason or Carroll. I'm thinking Robson, Keane, Vieira -- is that the sort of player you mean?

Anyway, I agree Dier isn't dynamic enough to be the **** and although I'm a big fan I'd like him to be an option rather than a shoo-in. I think Alli might best fill the role as he matures. Can't see the grit in the others.

I don't see Mason or Bentaleb as busy ****s either, in a cm2 I think they possibly both will be seen to better effect paired with a more disciplined player. I see Mason as a Cabaye type, I see Bentaleb as more a Schniederlin type (though obviously neither are exactly the same or the same quality in certain aspects yet). But you could definitely play both in a cm3, as you could Alli.

You only have to compare our goal difference to last season's to get a graphic illustration of how porous we were with Mason and Bentaleb. We were like an open barn door through the middle in multiple games. Granted, the front 4 are working as a cohesive unit now and can press effectively and Alderweireld has taken control of the back 4 but Dier has been instrumental in making us harder to beat. It's very much a case of either/or for me with Mason and Bentaleb, and quite often neither if Dier and Dembele are fit. What Dembele does which nobody else has in their locker is that he forces opponents to try to get the ball off him which creates angles and spaces for others.

You can't ignore those factors (the collective defensive improvement in all areas of the pitch) when praising or criticising this year's cm's and last year's respectively. Some of us (like @mpickard2087 and @steve) were constantly saying whoever plays in cm won't look great while all around them are fucking about.

And it's a lot simpler to have a remit like Dier has where you aren't tasked with doing much creatively.

In a cm2, many weeks I'd tend to agree with you, it probably is an either or, which is what I have said - see the few posts above in this thread.

 

[Matthew Wyatt]

I don't see Mason or Bentaleb as busy ****s either, in a cm2 I think they possibly both will be seen to better effect paired with a more disciplined player. I see Mason as a Cabaye type, I see Bentaleb as more a Schniederlin type (though obviously neither are exactly the same or the same quality in certain aspects yet). But you could definitely play both in a cm3, as you could Alli.

And as you could Eriksen, I'd suggest. I'd like to see a CM3. It's not as though we're dependent on the lone front man for goals.

 

[Flashspur]

Don't know where else to put this but the running bit is something our team is renowned for and its increasing not decreasing apparently...and we outran Arsenal as well. It seems the high press is alive and kicking even as we enter the end game section of the PL.

http://www.skysports.com/football/n...er-in-2016-than-any-other-premier-league-team

 

[Neon_Knight_]

An insightful read: http://13steps.co/2016/03/27/analysis-pochettino-tottenham-counterpress/

The comparison between Lamela and Eriksen is interesting.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

An insightful read: http://13steps.co/2016/03/27/analysis-pochettino-tottenham-counterpress/

The comparison between Lamela and Eriksen is interesting.

That's an absolutely cracking article. Worth @Bulletspur having a read (i think it's him that some of us have pointed out Eriksen's ability and importance in the press).

Some really poignant and salient stuff in there. Fore-instance the fact that both Chadli and Townsend both scored really badly in the "counter pressing recoveries per 90" section concretely backs up what many of us were saying (still saying in Chadli's case) about these two. And Poch made a big mistake putting these two in this time last year in place of Dembele and Lamela.

Also backs up why many of us defended Lamela throughout his time, because he's such a good fit for Pochettino's tactics.

I think it also highlights brilliantly why Dier is both valuable but also why some of us question his and Dembele viability for every situation. I would also add that we really haven't seen enough of two combinations I'd like to see in Dier/Bentaleb and Mason/Dembele for a meaningful statistical analysis. I think those two combos could combine the best of both facets, at least in some games.

I think it also underlines the role that statistical analysis can and is playing in the selection of players and recruitment (obviously that will be influenced bu the way the targeted player's team play - his team may not require him to press or recover possession quickly).

 

[Spursidol]

That's an absolutely cracking article. Worth @Bulletspur having a read (i think it's him that some of us have pointed out Eriksen's ability and importance in the press).

Some really poignant and salient stuff in there. Fore-instance the fact that both Chadli and Townsend both scored really badly in the "counter pressing recoveries per 90" section concretely backs up what many of us were saying (still saying in Chadli's case) about these two. And Poch made a big mistake putting these two in this time last year in place of Dembele and Lamela.

Also backs up why many of us defended Lamela throughout his time, because he's such a good fit for Pochettino's tactics.

I think it also highlights brilliantly why Dier is both valuable but also why some of us question his and Dembele viability for every situation. I would also add that we really haven't seen enough of two combinations I'd like to see in Dier/Bentaleb and Mason/Dembele for a meaningful statistical analysis. I think those two combos could combine the best of both facets, at least in some games.

I think it also underlines the role that statistical analysis can and is playing in the selection of players and recruitment (obviously that will be influenced bu the way the targeted player's team play - his team may not require him to press or recover possession quickly).

The other point to repeat is that whilst the article makes a lot of very good point, one error is to compare the CM's in 2014/15 with those in 2015/16 - the error being that in 2014/15 the front 4's willingness/ability to hold onto and recover the ball was vastly poorer than this season, with the consequence that the amount of work required of the Cm's in 2014/15 was vastly more than in 2015/16...which means that the stats cited in the 2 seasons are not comparable. Chalk and cheese

 

[Bus-Conductor]

The other point to repeat is that whilst the article makes a lot of very good point, one error is to compare the CM's in 2014/15 with those in 2015/16 - the error being that in 2014/15 the front 4's willingness/ability to hold onto and recover the ball was vastly poorer than this season, with the consequence that the amount of work required of the Cm's in 2014/15 was vastly more than in 2015/16...which means that the stats cited in the 2 seasons are not comparable. Chalk and cheese

That is an excellent point and one I wholeheartedly agree with, as several of us continually pointed last season and I stressed in and backed up with stats in my blog piece (https://forensiconions.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/che-pochs-revolutionary-insurgency-advancing/) any cm2 would have struggled to look as good with a poorly organised front four that also had inadequate personnel like Chadli and Townsend - who show in that blog to be the least effective at ball recovery after possession loss. Kane didn't start until November and no one had a proper pre season in Poch's first year either.

Hell, even Capoue is looking like the player he did at Toulouse and in his first few months with us again at Watford with a a harder working better organised bunch around him.

 

[Insomnia]

posts too long, did not read

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

posts too long, did not read

Do you not have enough time to spare, Insomnia?

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Good article by Gabriele Marcoti for ESPN:

http://www.espnfc.co.uk/club/atleti...-atletico-madrid-is-not-a-tactical-revolution

Diego Simeone's Atletico Madrid is not a tactical revolution

Last week, the Italian daily Gazzetta dello Sport devoted a full five pages to a single issue -- on the cover, Atletico Madrid manager Diego Simeone was shown in the classic Che Guevara pose. The issue they pondered was whether Simeone's style and brand of football, called "Cholismo" after his nickname, had replaced "tiki-taka" as the flavor of the month.

When you knock out Barcelona and Bayern Munich and find yourself level on points at the top of La Liga, it may seem fair to ask whether your style of play is the next big thing. Particularly when, season after season, you find yourself without key players -- Arda Turan, Joao Miranda, Mario Mandzukic last summer; David Villa, Diego Costa and Filipe Luis the year before.

Football is cyclical and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, which means folks will copy success. Folks have been emulating and incorporating tactical concepts that have succeeded for other teams for the past hundred years. Today, with blanket coverage and continuous cross-pollination, this is especially true. That's why there are fewer differences between the top leagues in terms of style of play than there were even just 20 years ago.

You saw it with Pep Guardiola's Barcelona itself. The team's techniques of high pressing and possession (neither was entirely new, though the way they were applied simultaneously was) were emulated to varying degrees across Europe, particularly among top teams. But given the success of Atletico -- and, even though it's a wholly different kettle of fish, Leicester in the Premier League -- are we now going to see a shift away from possession and pressing to not wanting the ball, playing quick counters and sitting deep?

Will "Cholismo" replace "Guardiolismo"?

Probably not, at least as far as top clubs are concerned. For a start, it's reductive and wrong to define "Cholismo" (and Atletico) as merely defensive barricades, set pieces, counterattacks and hanging on for dear life. You get that when you see them play Barcelona or Bayern, teams with much better players who emphasize possession. But Atleti spend most of the year playing clubs who are far worse in terms of technical ability than they are.

It's Spain, so you'll get some clubs like Rayo Vallecano with Paco Jemez or Celta with Eduardo Berizzo who will come out and attack better opponents. Yet teams like Granada or Levante won't stream forward and leave themselves exposed to the counter. That means Atleti will have a lot more of the ball, and they need to take the initiative. And to do it successfully, which they've done, you need something more than the counter and a war of attrition. You need a Plan B and players who can break down opponents, and Atleti have that with the likes of Saul, Koke, Antoine Griezmann and Yannick Ferreira-Carrasco.

Copying Atletico, therefore, wouldn't just involve trying to do what they did in the Champions League, but rather what they do against lesser teams, when in some ways Atletico go all Jekyll and Hyde. And that's not easy to do, which is part of what makes Simeone's achievements so remarkable.

There are other reasons that it's hard to see this sparking a trend. They're the same reasons that Italian football -- without getting into the old cliches of catenaccio -- moved away from a similar approach in the 1990s. Part of it was the way the game has changed. Attacking players are offered far more protection than they were in the past: you simply can't defend the way you once did. The game is now funded by its ability to deliver sports entertainment, and that defense-minded brand of football is out of step with the times.

Part of the transition away from a defensive approach was that, for a number of reasons, Italian football boasted outstanding attacking individuals -- both homegrown and imported -- who did not necessarily need to be part of a coherent attack-minded setup to be productive. The old joke about seven guys defending and three guys attacking had plenty of truth to it. When your three attackers were Diego Maradona, Bruno Giordano and Careca, or Roberto Mancini, Gianluca Vialli and Attilio Lombardo, you could get away with it.

The other key problem is that football is ultimately about trade-offs. And the formula is rather simple: if you are good at attacking and concede a goal, you can continue doing what you're good at (attacking) and catch up. And if you're good at attacking and you score, you can keep attacking and add to your margin.

Now flip it around. Let's say you're good at defending and score. Great! You will continue defending, which you're good at. But you won't necessarily be adding to your margin, which means that you can fall victim to a refereeing error, an individual mistake or a moment of brilliance from the opposition.

The real problem, though comes if you're a defensive team and you concede. At that stage, you need to take the initiative and attack, which won't be your forte. In a low-scoring sport, so if you don't maximize your opportunities to score, you can pay a hefty price.

Obviously, if you're good at counterattacking, taking the lead gives you an enormous edge. You saw it with Atletico in the first leg, when Saul's early moment of individual genius gave them the lead. The problem with such goals is that you don't know when -- or if -- they're going to come. Just as you don't know when -- or if -- someone will make a mistake, whether that someone is the opposition or the referee.

In other words, it's a gamble.

This doesn't mean that Simeone should have taken a different approach. On the contrary, he kept it tight and waited for something to happen, and chance and probability decreed that this positive "something" happened early. Had he gone toe-to-toe and tried to outplay Bayern or Barcelona, who simply have better players, his chances of winning would likely have dropped.

The interesting question as I see it is whether Simeone would have played this way if he had been the one at the helm of Bayern or Barcelona. I'm pretty sure he would not. "I don't know what I'll be as a manager," he told me several years ago, when he had just retired and was studying furiously for a coaching career. "But I'm increasingly convinced of two things: you will be more comfortable if your team reflects your personality, and you need to work with what you have and exploit the moment and the situation, masking your weaknesses and emphasizing your strengths."

Sure, if you look at the broader definition of "Cholismo," there's plenty to be copied and admired in Atletico Madrid: the players' tremendous application and execution, their intensity, and the obvious connection they have with their fans, which creates a virtuous cycle. Much of that is down to Simeone, who imbues his team with spirit, positivity and self-belief. But every coach tries to do that. It's not rocket science, it's just that Simeone does it better than most. And he has the tools to do it.

If, however, you look at a narrower definition and take "Cholismo" to be defensive organization that is just about aggression, a safety-first mentality and nicking goals on the counter and set pieces (and, like I said above, there is much more to Atletico than that), you're off base if you think this is a harbinger of some kind of tactical revolution, at least for the biggest, best-resourced clubs.

Simply put, if you're one of the big boys, you're going to have a lot of the ball against most opponents. And you had better have a clear idea of what to do with it.

 

[mightyspur]

Good article by Gabriele Marcoti for ESPN:

http://www.espnfc.co.uk/club/atleti...-atletico-madrid-is-not-a-tactical-revolution

Diego Simeone's Atletico Madrid is not a tactical revolution

Last week, the Italian daily Gazzetta dello Sport devoted a full five pages to a single issue -- on the cover, Atletico Madrid manager Diego Simeone was shown in the classic Che Guevara pose. The issue they pondered was whether Simeone's style and brand of football, called "Cholismo" after his nickname, had replaced "tiki-taka" as the flavor of the month.

When you knock out Barcelona and Bayern Munich and find yourself level on points at the top of La Liga, it may seem fair to ask whether your style of play is the next big thing. Particularly when, season after season, you find yourself without key players -- Arda Turan, Joao Miranda, Mario Mandzukic last summer; David Villa, Diego Costa and Filipe Luis the year before.

Football is cyclical and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, which means folks will copy success. Folks have been emulating and incorporating tactical concepts that have succeeded for other teams for the past hundred years. Today, with blanket coverage and continuous cross-pollination, this is especially true. That's why there are fewer differences between the top leagues in terms of style of play than there were even just 20 years ago.

You saw it with Pep Guardiola's Barcelona itself. The team's techniques of high pressing and possession (neither was entirely new, though the way they were applied simultaneously was) were emulated to varying degrees across Europe, particularly among top teams. But given the success of Atletico -- and, even though it's a wholly different kettle of fish, Leicester in the Premier League -- are we now going to see a shift away from possession and pressing to not wanting the ball, playing quick counters and sitting deep?

Will "Cholismo" replace "Guardiolismo"?

Probably not, at least as far as top clubs are concerned. For a start, it's reductive and wrong to define "Cholismo" (and Atletico) as merely defensive barricades, set pieces, counterattacks and hanging on for dear life. You get that when you see them play Barcelona or Bayern, teams with much better players who emphasize possession. But Atleti spend most of the year playing clubs who are far worse in terms of technical ability than they are.

It's Spain, so you'll get some clubs like Rayo Vallecano with Paco Jemez or Celta with Eduardo Berizzo who will come out and attack better opponents. Yet teams like Granada or Levante won't stream forward and leave themselves exposed to the counter. That means Atleti will have a lot more of the ball, and they need to take the initiative. And to do it successfully, which they've done, you need something more than the counter and a war of attrition. You need a Plan B and players who can break down opponents, and Atleti have that with the likes of Saul, Koke, Antoine Griezmann and Yannick Ferreira-Carrasco.

Copying Atletico, therefore, wouldn't just involve trying to do what they did in the Champions League, but rather what they do against lesser teams, when in some ways Atletico go all Jekyll and Hyde. And that's not easy to do, which is part of what makes Simeone's achievements so remarkable.

There are other reasons that it's hard to see this sparking a trend. They're the same reasons that Italian football -- without getting into the old cliches of catenaccio -- moved away from a similar approach in the 1990s. Part of it was the way the game has changed. Attacking players are offered far more protection than they were in the past: you simply can't defend the way you once did. The game is now funded by its ability to deliver sports entertainment, and that defense-minded brand of football is out of step with the times.

Part of the transition away from a defensive approach was that, for a number of reasons, Italian football boasted outstanding attacking individuals -- both homegrown and imported -- who did not necessarily need to be part of a coherent attack-minded setup to be productive. The old joke about seven guys defending and three guys attacking had plenty of truth to it. When your three attackers were Diego Maradona, Bruno Giordano and Careca, or Roberto Mancini, Gianluca Vialli and Attilio Lombardo, you could get away with it.

The other key problem is that football is ultimately about trade-offs. And the formula is rather simple: if you are good at attacking and concede a goal, you can continue doing what you're good at (attacking) and catch up. And if you're good at attacking and you score, you can keep attacking and add to your margin.

Now flip it around. Let's say you're good at defending and score. Great! You will continue defending, which you're good at. But you won't necessarily be adding to your margin, which means that you can fall victim to a refereeing error, an individual mistake or a moment of brilliance from the opposition.

The real problem, though comes if you're a defensive team and you concede. At that stage, you need to take the initiative and attack, which won't be your forte. In a low-scoring sport, so if you don't maximize your opportunities to score, you can pay a hefty price.

Obviously, if you're good at counterattacking, taking the lead gives you an enormous edge. You saw it with Atletico in the first leg, when Saul's early moment of individual genius gave them the lead. The problem with such goals is that you don't know when -- or if -- they're going to come. Just as you don't know when -- or if -- someone will make a mistake, whether that someone is the opposition or the referee.

In other words, it's a gamble.

This doesn't mean that Simeone should have taken a different approach. On the contrary, he kept it tight and waited for something to happen, and chance and probability decreed that this positive "something" happened early. Had he gone toe-to-toe and tried to outplay Bayern or Barcelona, who simply have better players, his chances of winning would likely have dropped.

The interesting question as I see it is whether Simeone would have played this way if he had been the one at the helm of Bayern or Barcelona. I'm pretty sure he would not. "I don't know what I'll be as a manager," he told me several years ago, when he had just retired and was studying furiously for a coaching career. "But I'm increasingly convinced of two things: you will be more comfortable if your team reflects your personality, and you need to work with what you have and exploit the moment and the situation, masking your weaknesses and emphasizing your strengths."

Sure, if you look at the broader definition of "Cholismo," there's plenty to be copied and admired in Atletico Madrid: the players' tremendous application and execution, their intensity, and the obvious connection they have with their fans, which creates a virtuous cycle. Much of that is down to Simeone, who imbues his team with spirit, positivity and self-belief. But every coach tries to do that. It's not rocket science, it's just that Simeone does it better than most. And he has the tools to do it.

If, however, you look at a narrower definition and take "Cholismo" to be defensive organization that is just about aggression, a safety-first mentality and nicking goals on the counter and set pieces (and, like I said above, there is much more to Atletico than that), you're off base if you think this is a harbinger of some kind of tactical revolution, at least for the biggest, best-resourced clubs.

Simply put, if you're one of the big boys, you're going to have a lot of the ball against most opponents. And you had better have a clear idea of what to do with it.

You should put that last sentence TL : DR - If you're one of the big boys, you're going to have a lot of the ball against most opponents. And you had better have a clear idea of what to do with it.

 

[THFCSPURS19]

@Bus-Conductor

This looks like a great analysis of our team, albeit it has been translated from French:

http://analysport.fr/tottenham-en/