Well done Spurs

[ti vu]

I would get your point but if Chelsea were even half competent at creating/finishing chances this game could genuinely have ended with them in double figures. Every time they got the ball they were through on goal with any simple pass over the top. Even with their constant inability to play said simple pass they still should have had 7 or 8.

I'll give it to Spurs it was certainly a unique and entertaining way to have some kind of season ruining meltdown. I think that was probably the single stupidest game of football I've ever seen.

Chelsea was not incompetent to the extend you implied here. I meant even before this game 4 goals, they scored more than us, and we didn't fail to create chances against a strong Tottenham when they defend in number.

Chelsea did create and score against teams defending with number in their box previously. Not high, but not to the extend that anyone can say for sure they would never score against 9 men with a makeshift back line.

No one claim it's the genius smartest way playing with 9 men. It's the question whether there is a correct way to get the result. Some people who implied they know better, would need to provide example of how their claim works.

 

[Rojofiam]

Yes, seems a desperate need in this thread to criticise Ange. Compared to the dire rubbish we are watching I would love a manager with some balls who wants to play attacking football. They are not winning the league but he has them playing good football within weeks of starting. No 3 year rebuild guff. And after losing Kane. Show some balance

It's more like you can still view him as a really good manager, like I do, but defending him basically not even giving his team a chance to salvage something from the game just to impress the crowd (or IDK why he did it) is nonsense. It was between a suicide call or a highly unlikely point, he chose the former option out of stubbornness.

 

[ti vu]

The number I said doesn't matter, it was just a made up example...but it's obvious that sitting back gives you significantly better chances (albeit still low chances) than your whole defensive line occupying the half way line in a 9v11...I wonder if Chelsea scored 8+ goals what the consensus would be here because any half decent team scores at least 6 in that game.

You again just pose hypothesis. Please list all the games you know, where 9 vs 11 for 30 plus minutes. It's not like teams just deliberately went in game planning to play with 9 men. What happened, happened. The scoreline ended at 1-4.

There is no basis to make claim without actual example, data because even sitting back, in theory it was still an 9 vs 10 opposition outfield player disadvantage. Not even 10 vs 10 opposition outfield player that already a disadvantage (with old statistic with a outlier)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4261340/Only-Arsenal-win-games-10-men-lose.html

 

[ti vu]

It's more like you can still view him as a really good manager, like I do, but defending him basically not even giving his team a chance to salvage something from the game just to impress the crowd (or IDK why he did it) is nonsense. It was between a suicide call or a highly unlikely point, he chose the former option out of stubbornness.

They created chances to equalizer at 2-1 until two late goals in stoppage time.

Here you just again implied that defending deep was the correct way in this situation. So without evidence, probability calculation, it's just untested theory.

 

[Rojofiam]

You again just pose hypothesis. Please list all the games you know, where 9 vs 11 for 30 plus minutes. It's not like teams just deliberately went in game planning to play with 9 men. What happened, happened. The scoreline ended at 1-4.

There is no basis to make claim without actual example, data because even sitting back, in theory it was still an 9 vs 10 opposition outfield player disadvantage. Not even 10 vs 10 opposition outfield player that already a disadvantage (with old statistic with a outlier)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4261340/Only-Arsenal-win-games-10-men-lose.html

You are claiming that having your 8 outfield players stand on the half-way line vs 10 opposition outfield players is not a less likely way to concede goals than for them to sit back deep in their own box against a team that struggles to break a low block.

Spurs were literally giving Chelsea free 1v1 and 2v1 chances against Vicario. For free. And that's in the best league in the world where 1 point (or even goal difference) could very well be the difference between 1st or 2nd, or 4th and 5th place.

If you had to have a life-saving operation, would you choose the one where you survive 1 out of 100 times, or the one where you get to live 1 out of 10 times?

I can't believe how people go through their whole lives without understanding something this simple.

 

[cjj]

They created chances to equalizer at 2-1 until two late goals in stoppage time.

Here you just again implied that defending deep was the correct way in this situation. So without evidence, probability calculation, it's just untested theory.

Exactly. It was a tight offside call away from being 2-2.

 

[Rojofiam]

Exactly. It was a tight offside call away from being 2-2.

It was also not far away from being 1-10, I wonder if you'd be saying the same thing then

 

[ti vu]

You are claiming that having your 8 outfield players stand on the half-way line vs 10 opposition outfield players is not a less likely way to concede goals than for them to sit back deep in their own box against a team that struggles to break a low block.

Spurs were literally giving Chelsea free 1v1 and 2v1 chances against Vicario. For free. And that's in the best league in the world where 1 point (or even goal difference) could very well be the difference between 1st or 2nd, or 4th and 5th place.

If you had to have a life-saving operation, would you choose the one where you survive 1 out of 100 times, or the one where you get to live 1 out of 10 times?

I can't believe how people go through their whole lives without understanding something this simple.

I don't make claim about correct way in this situation. I gave my interpretation on what happened, where Sours took the risk for trade for those chances on the other end. That's a big difference.

The responsibility to back up your claim is on you because your claim is "not even giving his team a chance to salvage something". Which implied sitting back could have got a high probability to stop conceding, or create more chances to get an equalizer (?).

 

[Rojofiam]

I don't make claim about correct way in this situation. I gave my interpretation on what happened, where Sours took the risk for trade for those chances on the other end. That's a big difference.

The responsibility to back up your claim is on you because your claim is "not even giving his team a chance to salvage something". Which implied sitting back could have got a high probability to stop conceding, or create more chances to get an equalizer (?).

How did I imply that it would've been a high probability to get something out of the game?

I literally stated "10%", "15%" and "highly unlikely point" several times to make sure I'm not misunderstood and you still came to this conclusion?

We have posters on here "not being able to forgive ETH" for the 7-0 vs Liverpool which was a freak result, because we conceded "only" 2.91 xG, but Ange apparently made a good decision yesterday because he got lucky not to concede 8+ goals...sometimes this forum ignores any type of sensible reasoning and just goes with the most illogical narrative you can possibly make up.

You can talk about the chances Spurs had at the end, but it doesn't matter. The highest, ALBEIT STILL VERY LOW CHANCE to get a point out of the game was for them to sit back against a weak Chelsea side that struggles in that type of game state...instead he gave them the chance to score 10 goals out of stubbornness...I mean, it was a 1-4 scoreline at home and most people would agree that Chelsea let them off the hook easily, considering the quality of chances they were gifted for free after Spurs went 2 men down.

 

[Oranges038]

How did I imply that it would've been a high probability to get something out of the game?

I literally stated "10%", "15%" and "highly unlikely point" several times to make sure I'm not misunderstood and you still came to this conclusion?

We have posters on here "not being able to forgive ETH" for the 7-0 vs Liverpool which was a freak result, because we conceded "only" 2.91 xG, but Ange apparently made a good decision yesterday because he got lucky not to concede 8+ goals...you can talk about the chances Spurs had at the end, but it doesn't matter. The highest, ALBEIT STILL VERY LOW CHANCE to get a point out of the game was for them to sit back against a weak Chelsea side that struggles in that type of game state...instead he gave them the chance to score 10 goals out of stubbornness...I mean, it was a 1-4 scoreline at home and most people would agree that Chelsea let them off the hook considering the quality of chances they were gifted for free after Spurs went 2 men down.

Chelsea's xg yesterday was 3.9/4 from what I've seen.

 

[Rojofiam]

Chelsea's xg yesterday was 3.9/4 from what I've seen.

It was actually almost 5, and even City or Liverpool usually don't create that much at home against relegation candidates.

 

[Oranges038]

It was actually almost 5, and even City or Liverpool usually don't create that much at home against relegation candidates.

Fbref, understat and opta had it 3.9/4. I think I'll take their word for it.

So in reality Spurs weren't really that lucky not to concede 8+ then.

 

[ti vu]

Even if you call it 0.0000001% better chance, you need to provide your calculation or example because you implied that you believe there is a correct way to deal with this situation.

How did I imply that it would've been a high probability to get something out of the game?

I literally stated "10%", "15%" and "highly unlikely point" several times to make sure I'm not misunderstood and you still came to this conclusion?

We have posters on here "not being able to forgive ETH" for the 7-0 vs Liverpool which was a freak result, because we conceded "only" 2.91 xG, but Ange apparently made a good decision yesterday because he got lucky not to concede 8+ goals...sometimes this forum ignores any type of sensible reasoning and just goes with the most illogical narrative you can possibly make up.

You can talk about the chances Spurs had at the end, but it doesn't matter. The highest, ALBEIT STILL VERY LOW CHANCE to get a point out of the game was for them to sit back against a weak Chelsea side that struggles in that type of game state...instead he gave them the chance to score 10 goals out of stubbornness...I mean, it was a 1-4 scoreline at home and most people would agree that Chelsea let them off the hook easily, considering the quality of chances they were gifted for free after Spurs went 2 men down.

https://understat.com/league/EPL/2023


https://understat.com/league/EPL/2022


That's not a lot lower.

I am not sure you understand the overall idea about how xG is calculated. I meant you're aware penalty has high xG value, and the 3 other goals Chelsea got are tap in right?

If you have the stomach for it, rewatch and count the number of blockers beside DDG in fifth, sixth and seventh goal, and you got the idea why xG stats may be low. Not that it's not easy shooting angle for Liverpool.

Nobody in their right mind would think a full eleven conceding 7 goals and using xG against them to justify it as any sort of better defensive tactic, when Liverpool entered our box for fun.



Please explain it is then in detail.

Else this is what it looks like: with 9 men, the more you set your defensive line back, the more playing space in front of the defensive line you allow your opposition. Unless you park the bus, and actually use all your 8 outfield men to block shot and give up any counter attack intent; a middle block is more dangerous than those two options: still a lot space to run in behind with more time and better angle to spread the pass.

Also remember after Udogie sent off, Tottenham ended up with Hojberg as CB, Emerson play as LB instead of his natural position. That's already more difficult than when Liverpool went down to 9 men against Tottenham earlier this season and went to back 5 system with all 5 defenders playing in their natural positions.

Why you take opinion of pissheads as correct? You already know they're not thinking straight.

I am baffled that people keep citing xG against Liverpool myth on different topic. I meant, do people ever doublecheck with different sources?

The issue people had with ETH is that we had multiple thrashing defeats! Our players played like they don't work in any kind of defensive tactic and act on pure individual instinct at time. Recent example from two latest defeats against Man City and Newcastle where Maguire, Evans, Dalot, Lindelof didn't attempt to play offside trap whether it's low block of half way line defending situation. Rewatch City third goal and pay attention to Evans (also Dalot). It's not one off in this game. Evans got played multiple time in this game.

Here is screen shot of Maguire position for the first conceded goal against Newcastle.



This is the topic in ETH thread. Again not a good comparison. Even the closest example like Tottenham vs Liverpool earlier this season, or us against Fupham in FA Cup tie last season are not that good enough comparison. Down to 9 men is rare. The injury beside the 2 sent off made it difficult for Tottenham to assemble a proper defensive line to begin with.