Season review in statistics: The defence.

[sloth]

Sloth, the thing I would make clear when posting stats like these is that they are the whole teams defensive stats. Not just the stats for "The Defence". A lot of the data will refer to other areas of the pitch. The ability to defend well all over the pitch will contribute to those stats above.

I'm saying that was your intention, just that by labelling it "The defence" makes it sound like we are only talking about the back 4/5.

I think one of the reasons for some of those stats above is that AVB has got the advanced players defending better/more coherently as a group.

If have some time later I will try to dig up some stats to corroborate this.

Sorry yes, you're right, I meant the defence as in stats which relate to how the team as a whole defends.

 

[Ironskullll]

The use of a high line. It results in most of the play being in the opposition half or away from our goal as we press the midfield, which results in fewer shots per game against us. It also results in a compressed pitch which aids the interception and tackle count. However, when it does get broken, the shots taken are usually good opportunities and so have a higher conversion rate than your standard chance.

Interesting - does an analysis of the actual goals conceded substantiate this? If we look at the actual goals themselves have they indeed tended to come as a result of the high line? Mind you, even if they have, that would only be half the story, because then you'd have to determine what other effects the high line had had. Hmmm

 

[stonecolddeanaustin]

Interesting - does an analysis of the actual goals conceded substantiate this? If we look at the actual goals themselves have they indeed tended to come as a result of the high line? Mind you, even if they have, that would only be half the story, because then you'd have to determine what other effects the high line had had. Hmmm

I don't know, I was just throwing it out there as a possible theory really. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the chance conversion rate against us is higher than anyone else, which to me would be symptomatic of a high line. However, our inability to defend set-pieces, as has been touched on by others previously, probably comes in to that as well so I think it's a combination of the two.

As to whether or not the high line is a good thing or not, I would think it normally is as it usually results in us dominating the game and you only have to look back to the early games of the season (West Brom at home I'm thinking here) plus a few games last year under Harry to see how bad we are when trying to sit back and defend.

 

[Booney]

Most defenders will say having a consistent back 4 helps enormously. Other than a new LB and possibly (fourth choice) CB, I can't see our defensive line changing a great deal this summer which has to be positive.

I read from this that AVB should largely leave well alone regarding our defence and focus most of his attention on other areas....particularly unlocking defences at home when opposition defences just sit right back. We need a plan B when the Bale long-range shot is off target.

 

[formlesswater]

I wonder how many of our goals conceded were from set pieces, and how that compares to other teams

 

[Main Man]

then how come our stats come out so good?

The stats merely show we concede the fewest chances, as fans we knew already we restrict teams to few chances. Didn't we?

The problem is however, the fact that those chances are often 6 yards out from poorly defended corners.

 

[ShelfSide18]

I was wondering this recently, how many goals have we conceded due to the high line (and we haven't played a high line every game), how many goals from set pieces, long range etc

I don't remember too many goals conceded from 1 on 1s off the top of my head, which would show the high line being breached.

 

[padgateyids]

I think I read somewhere earlier in the season, and it wouldn't surprise me knowing our luck, that the percentage of chacnes converted is the highest amongst us. So despite the fact we give so few opportunities, when strikers face us they just always seem to be clinical. Ahh to be a Spurs fan

i always think this, we seem to let the first shot on goal in to often. On average in the league 1 in 5 shots result in a goal, be nice/not nice to see what ours is.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

For me, the season kind of split into three phases. The first phase was from the start to the Everton away game. During this period the team were incoherent, performances were hap hazard and disjointed with no clear 90 minute structure to any of them. No evidence of a clear tactical or strategic philosophy as this was clearly a transitional period.

During this period we conceded an average of 1.7 goals a game. We averaged 1.6 points per game. (16 games)




The second phase was when we really started to see us change tactically. You could see a coherent pressing strategy starting to form, a high line and more ball possession. This was from Swansea home to Arsenal home.

During this phase we conceded an average of 0.7 goals a game. 2.3 points per game. (12 games)


The final phase started with our capitulation at Liverpool to the end of the season. There was some decent performances during this spell and it's not that everything went tits up, but I felt aspects of individual team selection effected the overall tactics generally and individual errors - sometimes associated with them crept in more frequently:

During this phase we conceded on average 1.3 goals a game. 1.8 points per game (10 games)



This is a very broad generalisation, and very subjective on my part, but that's how the season felt to me. They seemed to be three very defined changes in our collective appearance during these phases. There seemed to be a real purple patch from Swansea home through until the Liverpool away game where we really had our shit together. The averages in terms of goals conceded and points gained was of the highest order, and it was this phase more than any other that put us in contention for a CL place.

I don't believe that seasons hang on single moments or games, but that capitulation at Liverpool and the manor of it, really seemed a turning point.

For me the point others have made (Sloth and SS being two I think) is that coaching and the application of tactics can really improve a the collective, making them better than the sum of their individual parts for long periods, but those individual components can also cost you.

Defending starts from the front and players like Dempsey and Defoe are poor in this respect. Bale and Lennon aren't brilliant either but Bale's offensive contribution (and I don't just mean goals) easily now pays back any defensive debt. The others don't.

All our main three cm's Sandro, Parker and Dembele are good defensively. Some better than others obviously, but none represent a defensive compromise. Hudd, who played less than the others is obviously a defensive weak link. He can't press or close down the opposition very well, and is easily bypassed and out manoeuvred or run.

All our defenders make mistakes. Only Vertonghen's footballing and creative contribution (ie his footballing and offensive contribution as a CB is expected to be much less than a full backs, therefore he over achieves in this respect) excels enough of the expectation to pay back any defensive errors. Walker, Dawson & Ekotto are all minus contributors IMO. Walkers brain fuck at Liverpool had a profound effect on our season IMO - as much as any single incident can anyway. Ironically, I think defensively, Walker's best period was that final third phase. But at no point this season did Walker contribute anywhere near enough offensively or creatively to match up to the expectation of an attacking fb (a fb given plenty of remit to attack). Dawson was absolutely awful during this third phase.

For the record, Vertonghen was our top tackler in the team, and top player for winning back possession. He also made the most successful headed clearances and basic clearances. For me, despite the odd blunder, he is an absolute diamond of a signing.

 

[Gedson100]

This just reemphasises how close we are.

We spent an entire season dominating the majority of our matches, particularly after Christmas by which time tactics seemed to have bedded in. When we played badly usually it was a matter of us failing to penetrate the opposition rather than being overrun.
Man Utd rolled up at the Lane intent on defending throughout, and most of our goals conceded either were down to mistakes, or came against the run of play.

Plus, we've struggled with key injuries, Sandro/ Parker: half a season each, Kaboul all year, Ekotto / no consistant left back all year, Ade or Defoe have had spells out too, Dembele out a couple of times coinciding with lesser form.
Quite obviously, it's been when we've not had key players out that we've been most successful. Loads of poorer results involve Livermore or Dempsey/Defoe/Lennon all off form etc.

I've never known a Tottenham team that has so rarely looked like it was being overrun than the one I watched this year.

It all bodes well for the future.

 

[Main Man]

The second phase was when we really started to see us change tactically. You could see a coherent pressing strategy starting to form, a high line and more ball possession. This was from Swansea home to Arsenal home.

Dawson was absolutely awful during this third phase.

For the record, Vertonghen was our top tackler in the team, and top player for winning back possession. He also made the most successful headed clearances and basic clearances. For me, despite the odd blunder, he is an absolute diamond of a signing.

It was indeed Arsenal in my opinion who showed subsequent teams how penetrable our high line could be. Ironic, huh? Hence the start of "phase three".

With regards to phase three, Dawson was awful, but so was Vertonghen. He was at fault for so many goals in this third phase.

He was a culprit in the Basle game at home, whilst we all know his impact in the game away from home. He was then directly at fault for both Everton's goals 3 days later at the lane. He was also at fault for Wigan's equaliser.

There are also other instances in this period where his mistakes, aided by others contributed to us conceding. Man City's goal - he should never have let Tevez out that corner. Wigan's second - he should have been a lot closer to Naughton so when the ball came inside he would have been 'in the way'. Also for Chelsea's second, he got sucked into the ball which Ramires exploited and punished.

Like I say though, those are all goals where others should have also done better. Man City - who was tracking the run of Milner? Wigan's second - why did Naughton let him come inside? Chelsea's second - who was tracking Ramires, why didn't Dawson cover round quick enough?

Verts has had a solid first season, but let's not get carried away. He often excels when making up for his own mistakes.

 

[michaelden]

Looking at the above it looks like we concede the fewest shots per game, make a lot of tackles per game, particularly at home, make far more interceptions per game, and yet commit very few fouls. All good stuff, but then how come we conceded more goals than any of the other seven?

1 Freidel
2 No Sandro
3 We press higher often leaving space b/n mid & def
4 Teams love to beat us so raise their game... wankers
5 You still reading?
6 We break into space quickly, more space if you start from the back so pass backwards to try create space and a counter
7 Phew, you've stopped and just carried on
8 Bale moving central leaves more space wide

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Looking at the above it looks like we concede the fewest shots per game, make a lot of tackles per game, particularly at home, make far more interceptions per game, and yet commit very few fouls. All good stuff, but then how come we conceded more goals than any of the other seven?

Just an idea, but playing a high line and pressing game is designed to limit chances, but when breached it often can mean chances are of a high quality - ie you are through on goal if you breach the offside ?

I'm not saying this is the reason definitively, we'd have to watch and analyse every goal to form a cast iron opinion I guess ?

 

[ShelfSide18]

Off the top of my head I can't actually remember conceding too many goals due to the high line (remember, we've not played a high line every game) being breached, I may be wrong but I don't remember having too many problems with it generally.

It would be interesting to see an analysis of where our goals were conceded this season.

 

[only1waddle]

Off the top of my head I can't actually remember conceding too many goals due to the high line (remember, we've not played a high line every game) being breached, I may be wrong but I don't remember having too many problems with it generally.

It would be interesting to see an analysis of where our goals were conceded this season.

I had a butchers at this, more a general analysis and stat comparison with 2011/12

http://www.eplindex.com/32238/tottenham-improved-avb-season-stats-analysis.html

 

[sloth]

Just an idea, but playing a high line and pressing game is designed to limit chances, but when breached it often can mean chances are of a high quality - ie you are through on goal if you breach the offside ?

I'm not saying this is the reason definitively, we'd have to watch and analyse every goal to form a cast iron opinion I guess ?

Yep, a guy on the first page made the same good point!

 

[stov]

Looking at the above it looks like we concede the fewest shots per game, make a lot of tackles per game, particularly at home, make far more interceptions per game, and yet commit very few fouls. All good stuff, but then how come we conceded more goals than any of the other seven?

set pieces

 

[Flashspur]

you have to agree they are impressive when comparing our league position with the big 4. Those set pieces though! Uugh!