or to join or start a new Discussion

17 Comments
Article Rating     Not Rated Yet

Interesting Read on Tottenham's Running....

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/12428281/tottenham-ranked-second-for-running-under-mauricio-pochettino-but-bottom-under-nuno-espirito-santo

Decent analysis by Sky, actually doing some real sports journalism rather than trying to sell our players for us.

comment by (U22718)

posted 6 days, 2 hours ago

posted 6 days, 2 hours ago

Under Poch he would often rotate fullbacks so they would only play once per week I think this helped both running stats and our performances.

posted 6 days, 1 hour ago

Perhaps the squad is getting old?
Sky should have added squad's average age to their analysis.
And it would be interesting to know how Wolves were running last season and how PSG are running today.

posted 6 days ago

Imo as much as a coach/manager may want his players to run it ultimately is down to the players, if they can't be bothered despite instructions they will simply run 10m instead of the required say 15m?

It's something that always properly vexes me, the very least you should expect from a player earning a fortune is physical effort!

I can accept a lower skill level, a player who can get outplayed by a better one but lack of "running" grinds my gears.

posted 6 days ago

The fact we ran over 7km less than arsenal in our biggest derby is shocking

posted 5 days, 23 hours ago

comment by Insufferable-Piffle, just in case, I'm sorry! (U4388)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
Imo as much as a coach/manager may want his players to run it ultimately is down to the players, if they can't be bothered despite instructions they will simply run 10m instead of the required say 15m?

It's something that always properly vexes me, the very least you should expect from a player earning a fortune is physical effort!

I can accept a lower skill level, a player who can get outplayed by a better one but lack of "running" grinds my gears.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Must mean the players don't respect each other. If you can't play for each other then says it all about the over paid divas.

When I play competitive sports..the coach is important but ultimately you and your mates wanted to win.

posted 5 days, 22 hours ago

comment by Ioavirgo (U10470)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by Insufferable-Piffle, just in case, I'm sorry! (U4388)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
Imo as much as a coach/manager may want his players to run it ultimately is down to the players, if they can't be bothered despite instructions they will simply run 10m instead of the required say 15m?

It's something that always properly vexes me, the very least you should expect from a player earning a fortune is physical effort!

I can accept a lower skill level, a player who can get outplayed by a better one but lack of "running" grinds my gears.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Must mean the players don't respect each other. If you can't play for each other then says it all about the over paid divas.

When I play competitive sports..the coach is important but ultimately you and your mates wanted to win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely the coach can drive home an instruction but it's up to the individual to decide to carry it out, or not as the case may be

comment by SteveF (U22027)

posted 5 days, 12 hours ago

So Lloris runs runs the least distance of our squad season to date. I mean, just how far is it to run from one goal post to the other.

Then they list the defenders as the next group who run the least. Might be wrong, but I assume they are too busy defending, rather than running all over the pitch ?

Then, three quarters of the way through the article, the author suddenly realises that City, Utd and Chelsea are all in the bottom half of the running table, and quickly justify this by saying "well that's ok, because they have the ball for most of their games, so don't need to run as much" Just a thought, but maybe they are at the top of the league because they spend more and therefore generally have all the best players ?

Pointless article that has more holes in it than a rusty old bucket. All sorts of wonderful facts and figures, but ultimately an excuse for yet another negative article about Spurs. We get we are rubbish, honestly, but don't need to keep being reminded by Sky.

posted 5 days, 12 hours ago

comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted 11 minutes ago
So Lloris runs runs the least distance of our squad season to date. I mean, just how far is it to run from one goal post to the other.

Then they list the defenders as the next group who run the least. Might be wrong, but I assume they are too busy defending, rather than running all over the pitch ?

Then, three quarters of the way through the article, the author suddenly realises that City, Utd and Chelsea are all in the bottom half of the running table, and quickly justify this by saying "well that's ok, because they have the ball for most of their games, so don't need to run as much" Just a thought, but maybe they are at the top of the league because they spend more and therefore generally have all the best players ?

Pointless article that has more holes in it than a rusty old bucket. All sorts of wonderful facts and figures, but ultimately an excuse for yet another negative article about Spurs. We get we are rubbish, honestly, but don't need to keep being reminded by Sky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should be glad that Sky have taken the trouble to write the article. Hopefully Nuno and the players take note and up their game.

posted 5 days, 12 hours ago

Surprised Ndombele has resgistered so many sprints.

Sign in if you want to comment
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Rate Breakdown
5
0 Votes
4
0 Votes
3
0 Votes
2
0 Votes
1
0 Votes

Average Rating: 0 from 0 votes

ARTICLE STATS
Day
Article Ranking292/500
Article Views1
Average Time(mins)0.97
Total Time(mins)0.97
Month
Article Ranking348/500
Article Views590
Average Time(mins)2.01
Total Time(mins)941.48