Match Ratings Ratings vs Chelsea

[Verloc]

Thought Sess looked out of his depth today.

 

[SpartanSpur]

It was clear to me that we still have a fair amount of work to do to be able to go toe to toe with Chelsea. We spent large parts of that game hanging on and it was a tough watch.

I didn’t think we were brave enough today, which was disappointing. Picked up a bit 2nd half when Richarlison came on but there’s still a gulf.

Sessegnon had a torrid time and Emerson not much better. I really hoped we’d go big on a class RWB this summer, you could see the difference Perisic made on the other side with his quality.

Can’t say any of them deserved a MOTM award but, hey, take the point and learn something from it.

Chelsea are a good match for us stylistically, much like we are a good match for City.

For me it was a case today of their strengths and our weaknesses being exaggerated as a result. They play some nice controlling passing and are good at shutting down the centre of the park, it makes them a tough match for us. Especially at their place too.

Personally I still think we'll finish above them. I think the lack of cutting edge and the age of their main 2 CBs could hurt them over a full season.

Our response against Wolves next week will be more telling IMHO.

 

[VegasII]

Periodic has to start now! Fantastic long throws. I’m not sure but did he hit in swinging corners from either side? Unbelievable quality too. Who needs Ward-Prowse

That’ll give us some more chemistry, should push us up the table.

 

[Timberwolf]

Feel like today was more about systems rather than individual performances. Or at least showed how systems can cause players to have bad individual performances.

Chelsea were set up to nullify our system - tightly marking the forwards and pressing the wing backs. When we did pass it between the lines, Kane and Son were notably poor and neither of them were sharp enough to make their usual rehearsed flicks and touches to get the Conte system whirring and the team up the pitch. Chelsea didn't make it easy for them, though, and basically made it a nightmare to get into the game.

Overall feel like our poor performance was a combination of Conte getting a few things wrong, our best players not being at it and a fired up Chelsea team with a strong game plan.

We need to come up with a way to deal with teams that do this to us, going forward. We had the exact same problem against Saints and Brighton last season so whether it's a change to the system or the personnel, Conte needs to figure that out.

 

[C0YS]

Right, so it's totally not accurate. It can't possibly be. It's just a guide of what might or might not be true. Actually watching a football game is a better test, IMHO, but each to their own

In terms of being able to tell how good a chance is, your eyes are absolutely not more reliable. Eyes are much better at understanding the flow of a game mind, as well as context.

Chelsea were clearly better. But there failure to win wasn't down to luck. It was down to their failure to convert pressure into actual clear chances. The xG is even more skewered when you consider their better chances came later in the game.

This is why presenting this as an absolute shit performance is wrong. It absolutely wasn't that. I mean I hope we can perform better, but I suspect people's take on the performance is in part down to overconfidence at the start of the match and disappointment that Chelsea, yes where better than us.

Another statistical tool, an unreliable one is who scored, who gives a rating by just breaking down numbers and assigning it a value (which is quite arbitrary) they're system actually has Tottenham as very fractionally the better team in the game (by 0.01 a point).

Now clearly that tool is not giving an accurate description of the performance. But, it does further corroborate on the xG that shows that the game maybe wasn't as uneven as people here might think.

When you watch a game there is actually a lot of inherent bias. There's confirmation bias, so if you think a player is shit you are more likely to see things that indicate that they are shit (Say Royals final third contribution) rather than what they did well (Royals wonderful last ditch tackle after really poor defensive work from Persic) for example.

But you also have a lot of emotion pumped into it that of course informs how you interpret what you see. It's inevitable, everyone does it. So our eyes are not that reliable either. Not are statistics good at telling how a match really went.

What I think is a good thing to do is to rewatch matches. When you take away the emotional element you can better see what is happening, and I reckon if you were to rewatch this match maybe you will have a slightly different perspective.

Don't get me wrong. Chelsea were better and should have won. But it's not like we were completely overwhelmed and somehow managed to get away with it. We were always in the game, while never in control of it. And actually we did defend well over large parts of it. We did create chances throughout the game (in fact we even had more shots on target) and there was always the possibility for us to get something out of it.

 

[tommyt]

In terms of being able to tell how good a chance is, your eyes are absolutely not more reliable. Eyes are much better at understanding the flow of a game mind, as well as context.

Chelsea were clearly better. But there failure to win wasn't down to luck. It was down to their failure to convert pressure into actual clear chances. The xG is even more skewered when you consider their better chances came later in the game.

This is why presenting this as an absolute shit performance is wrong. It absolutely wasn't that. I mean I hope we can perform better, but I suspect people's take on the performance is in part down to overconfidence at the start of the match and disappointment that Chelsea, yes where better than us.

Another statistical tool, an unreliable one is who scored, who gives a rating by just breaking down numbers and assigning it a value (which is quite arbitrary) they're system actually has Tottenham as very fractionally the better team in the game (by 0.01 a point).

Now clearly that tool is not giving an accurate description of the performance. But, it does further corroborate on the xG that shows that the game maybe wasn't as uneven as people here might think.

When you watch a game there is actually a lot of inherent bias. There's confirmation bias, so if you think a player is shit you are more likely to see things that indicate that they are shit (Say Royals final third contribution) rather than what they did well (Royals wonderful last ditch tackle after really poor defensive work from Persic) for example.

But you also have a lot of emotion pumped into it that of course informs how you interpret what you see. It's inevitable, everyone does it. So our eyes are not that reliable either. Not are statistics good at telling how a match really went.

What I think is a good thing to do is to rewatch matches. When you take away the emotional element you can better see what is happening, and I reckon if you were to rewatch this match maybe you will have a slightly different perspective.

Don't get me wrong. Chelsea were better and should have won. But it's not like we were completely overwhelmed and somehow managed to get away with it. We were always in the game, while never in control of it. And actually we did defend well over large parts of it. We did create chances throughout the game (in fact we even had more shots on target) and there was always the possibility for us to get something out of it.

Great Post ??

 

[peispurs]

You absolutely can based on statistics. A 0.5 xG chance, which is quite high, will still be missed half the time. It's like when it looked like Trump was gonna win in 2020, and people were like 'the statisticians were wrong again, they didn't predict this' just because he was given only a 10 % chance to win the election. But they did predict that outcome as one of the possible outcomes that would see Trump win. It's a slight digression, but it's a good example of the general population's non existing understanding of statistics.

The 'organics' of a particular chance is accounted for in the statistical distribution. It's absolutely not flawless, but when you play match after match after match, there will be a certain convergence towards a mean probability for a particular chance to end in a goal.

Does xG account for the quality of the player? Its one thing for Kane to take a shot from 18 yards out, and quite another for Sissoko to take a shot from the exact same location.

 

[eddiev14]

Chelsea are a good match for us stylistically, much like we are a good match for City.

For me it was a case today of their strengths and our weaknesses being exaggerated as a result. They play some nice controlling passing and are good at shutting down the centre of the park, it makes them a tough match for us. Especially at their place too.

Personally I still think we'll finish above them. I think the lack of cutting edge and the age of their main 2 CBs could hurt them over a full season.

Our response against Wolves next week will be more telling IMHO.

I do agree about the contrasting playing styles. I think we’ll look back at this as an extremely good point

 

[parj]

We were lucky to get a draw. Closest to man of the match was Richarlison just because he looked up for it and wanted to put defenders under pressure.

I think Conte needs to work out why he plays the way he does against Chelsea. It's like he is scared of them. The moment he put on an extra attacker it allowed us to look dangerous which meant their defenders were sitting deeper.

523 doesn't work against Tuchel. He sets his team to play down the middle. How after the 3 games he had last season in one month he hasn't worked this out, I don't understand.

 

[double0]

There is a case for us to play 352 in certain games. It's all good and well people coming out with xG chances created, we also need to show more game control in both phases without and with the ball. As a spectacle I'd like to see us dominate with the ball at time against top teams.

 

[Jamturk]

Romero was great again.

 

[The Scarecrow]

Right, so it's totally not accurate. It can't possibly be. It's just a guide of what might or might not be true. Actually watching a football game is a better test, IMHO, but each to their own

What do you mean by accurate?

 

[Gilzeanking]

Richarlison brought a whole load of energy to our pressing from the front when he came on. Up until then they strolled around at the back with Kane ambling about. I don't think we'd have got back in it without that change.

Yep, this is something we have to face. Kane isn't pressing. It makes playing out from the back for our opponents
a walk in the park. Rich's arrival added, yes a 'whole load of energy to our pressing'. When one forward doesn't press it immediately stops others from pressing because its too easy to play through. Something for Antonio to look at imo.

As he said we weren't 'calm' on the ball in phases. Not quite up to our ball-as-hot potato worst, but on the way there imo

Good thing is this was a wakeup call nice 'n early in the season .We need to bed in our newbies and mebbe extra
transfer effort is needed .

 

[The Scarecrow]

Does xG account for the quality of the player? Its one thing for Kane to take a shot from 18 yards out, and quite another for Sissoko to take a shot from the exact same location.

I don't think it does, which I guess cam be both a weakness and a strength, depending on how you look at it. A stellar finisher will most likely overperform his xG, and such it doesn't account for elite players being elite.

But on the other hand, it's not really the quality of the striker that is important, but the things that lead to the chance in question. So it's somewhat of an objective way to measure the quality of a chance regardless of who's on the end of it.

 

[whitesocks]

romero - no brilliant last second interception. no surging runs into midfield, no headers on target, but for shithousery ...10/10 and motm. this is what the games at the bridge are all about.

kane - poor pressing and missed a golden opportunity he'd normally bury. largely invisible. 9/10. because.

hojbjerg and bentancur - outnumbered but got through a lot a work, scored/involved in the goals. 7/10

richarlison - looked quality in build-up play, with good touches, passes and steadied the ship. he made a difference. 2/10. sorry but where was all the shithousery? that's why we bought you - for this game in particular.

dixon - 0/10 you have one job and that is to throttle and squeeze the life out of anyone who gets near conte. i think he's a pacifist ffs.

conte - 10/10 he hates them. plus I didn't think he'd be brave enough to go 4 at the back. but he did. sort of. not that any of the other defenders changed their positions. and no-one told son that might have to, you know, track back a little to cover. but it broke the pattern of the game.

 

[night-watchman]

Lloris - Okay. One outstanding save in the first half.
Sess - Really Poor. Our worst defender today by a distance. Perisic wasnt on long but the difference was very noticable and in these big away games he is the better option.
Davies - Poor. When we went to 4-4-2 in the 2nd half he really struggled. Not his fault entirely as he was left extremely exposed by Son but even so didnt cover himself in glory.
Dier - Okay. Possibly at fault for 2nd goal by rushing across too quickly but otherwise he was okay - the issues with todays performance certainly didnt come from him.
Romero - Good. Fuck me he takes it too far though. The hair pull was just completely unnecessary and it wouldnt be undeserved if he got a ban for it.
Emerson - Good. I actually thought defensively he was our best player today. He was on a hiding to nothing back there sometimes and dealt with a lot of very tricky situations well. Going forward he is always going to be an issue.
Bentancur - Really poor. I was surprised he was on the pitch as long as he was. Chelsea were passing between our lines so so easily. He is a calming influence when we are in control of the ball, but in chaotic backs to the wall games like today we will surely go with Bissouma in the future.
Hojbjerg - Poor. Nearly as bad as Bentancur but saved himself with a wonderfully taken goal. If he actually played football as much as he spent time pointing around and chest thumping he would be a very good player.
Son - Awful. Our worst player on the park today and his worst game in a Spurs shirt for a long long time. His touch was way off, gave the ball away pretty much every time he touched it, lazy in the press and when we switched to 4-4-2 left poor Davies back there horribly exposed.
Kane - Poor. Like Son, his touch was off and gave the ball away a lot. Everytime the ball was played into his feet he seemed to get bullied off it. Bad 1 on 1 miss in the second half but saved us with the last minute goal.
Kulu - Okay. Out of the starting front 3 he was the best and put in the most effort. Not much of it was coming off and butchered a relatively straightforward pass to Son right at the beginning of the game to put him clean through on goal. Overall though he did okay with very limited options to work with and worked hard.

Subs:
Richarlison - Good. He didn't actually do much on the ball but brought a burst of passion and energy. He should have come on for Son at H-T..
Bissouma - N/A. Why it took him so long to come on I dont know. Surely he could have offered more than Bentancur and Hojbjerg today who were both awful.
Perisic - N/A. Again not overly sure why it took him so long to get on. The difference between him and Sess was very clear here and his delivery from corners was excellent.

Conte - Poor.
I didnt think Conte had a good game today. Slow with his changes, which let's be honest could have been made at the first half drinks break. Their second goal had been on the cards for a good 10 minutes before it happened where they were getting overloads on our left. I don't think it was actually necessary to go to a 4-4-2. Straight swaps of Perisic for Sess, Richarlison for Son and Bissouma for Bentnacur could have achieved the same results without leaving us horribly exposed on the flanks. We were completely overrun in midfield all game and surprised he didnt do something to sure up the centre of the park. Not criticising him obviously unbelievable manager but not his best day at the office today.

 

[Finchyid]

I still disagree, though. Their chances were much better than ours and more numerous. IMO.

Kane had best chance of the match

 

[leffe186]

Yeah agree with the last three big posts I think. The big differences between the teams were (a) the formations in the first half (b) the quality of the full-backs and (c) having an out-and-out forward or two. (a) and (b) should have lost us the game, but (c) saved us a point.

I thought before the game that Conte should have played Perisic instead of Sess, and nothing I saw dispelled that thought. Also feel like Doherty would have done a better job than Emerson going forward. Chelsea’s passing and pressing was just so much slicker all round, and this was definitely a point won. But it was won, and we’ll play better.

It felt so bloody good to score from a corner.

 

[yusrisafri]

There is a case for us to play 352 in certain games. It's all good and well people coming out with xG chances created, we also need to show more game control in both phases without and with the ball. As a spectacle I'd like to see us dominate with the ball at time against top teams.

This. This post gets MOTM.

Fcuk xg, fcuk equal chances et al, we were terrible and so sloppy in possession and thats what matters to me.

We were inferior to Chelsea and need to vastly improve, and dont anyone deny that.

 

[ralphs bald spot]

So we were lucky that Chelsea decided to sit on it? That doesn't seem like luck. That seems like a strategic blunder on their part.

It doesn't tell the story of the match no. But we had three very clear chances, we took none of them. The sess one I'm not convinced at all that it was offside but in any case this was a much closer performance than previous games against Chelsea.

The hairpull I didn't catch but tbh there was a whole lot of crap going on by both players in those corners. Even the 'controversy' over our first goal grates on me. Yeah, it probably was a foul but those things are not given constantly in a football game and it didn't directly lead to the goal at all.

I know some fans like to make excuses for conceding poor goals so a decision not going your way then becomes 'the reason' you conceded a goal. But I always have seen that as abdicating responsibility. Chelsea conceded both goals because they didn't defend them well enough, and we took those opportunities. It's as simple as that. What the ref does or doesn't do in this case had very little to do with letting in perfectly defendable opportunities.

mate we would all go berserk if we conceded those goals the first one clearly offside and the second one after the Romero stupidity - Chelsea had other chances notably Havertz and Sterling misses we had chances especially Kane's but we were fortunate today and on another would have walked away with nothing. It should serve as a wake up call that there is still a long way to go


mom for us was Dier over Royal - Conte got a little out manoeuvred by Tuchel today