Tottenham: Why Spurs were never a threat to Chelsea

When were Spurs first? Never.

Tottenham Hotspur went on a 9 game win streak in the league from the 4-0 demolition of Stoke City on the 26th of February, to the 1-0 upset by West Ham on the 5th of May, undoubtedly a run of results worthy of a league winner, yet still Chelsea maintained a 7 point gap at the top.

What does that say? Chelsea got lucky by goal difference? Chelsea had an easy run of fixtures? No.

Chelsea were better and more consistent throughout their Premier League campaign? Yes.

Chelsea have not had a problem with injuries towards player in their first team, they have lost 5 games as opposed to Spurs’ 4 in the league, “but” have drawn significantly less.

You know who else lost only 5 games?

Manchester United, which made them the king of “drawing” in the league with 15. Spurs’ record with United is 1-1 in the league, exchanging wins at their respective home grounds.

Where were Manchester United in the title race?

 

Never in the thick of it in the first place

Now chaining results is the most unreliable way of comparison and yes Tottenham have had a massively better season than Manchester United, but that’s not the point here.

Yes, Spurs were good there is no doubt about that, maybe even the best in the league during that 9 game win streak, but it does not mean they got robbed of the title… especially when they never had it in the first place.

It was the loss and the draw against Leicester, the goalless draw against relegated Sunderland among other needless draws against inferior teams which sent the consistency of Spurs astray.

This is also the story of Manchester United but double it, then triple it.

 

Even United’s unbeaten run was more note-worthy

United had an unbeaten streak from the 29th of October all the way until their recent loss against Arsenal (7th of May) which broke the run of 13 wins and 12 draws.

It is worth mentioning during this run they had a spell of 6 wins on the trot starting from a 1-0 win against none other than Tottenham on the 11th of December ending with a (1-1) draw against Liverpool on the 15th of January, but still their story ends with them in 6th place.

The conclusion here is that Spurs had a good season and they deserve the plaudits and the glory… of second place because Chelsea were better.

 

Written by Joshua Arnup

Follow Joshua on Twitter @JoshArnup

Like O-Posts on Facebook

You can also follow O-Posts on Twitter @OPosts

8 Comments

  1. jess

    May 23, 2017 at 19:55

    What is the point of this article? I cant see one!

  2. Clive

    May 23, 2017 at 20:12

    Totally agree with Jess. Don’t get it

  3. Lars

    May 23, 2017 at 20:15

    Not quite as black and white as you suggest
    a) Spurs were in Europe and had the additional games to contend with in both the Champions League and the Europa League. Chelsea did not have the distraction due to the inglorious defence of their title the previous year
    b) Chesea have been hugely fortunate with injuries this season whilst Spurs have had a number of injuries to key players
    c) Over the season Chelsea proved more consistent hence more points. However if you remove the results of October from both teams tally then Spurs win the title comfortably. So one period in the first third of the season caused Tottenhams downfall.
    d) Chelsea won the league with the same squad that won it 2 seasons ago largely. It is only due to being so so poor last season that anyone questioned their credentials this year. e) Chelsea have that killer instinct, the winnning experience that comes with pervious titles. Spurs are the youngest team in the league and will develop this with experience.
    f) Chelsea fans continue with their racist chants and remain a throwback to their 1980’s heritage as a front for the Far Right. They laud a convicted racist and bigot who, in 2017, is held as an example of a man to which these fans choose to idolise.
    g) Who are you suggesting lost and drew with Leicester? Maybe the schoolboy error is due to you being one of the glory hunting brigade that have piggy backed onto Abramovich’s millions rather than the real fans attracted to other clubs?

  4. Edward

    May 23, 2017 at 20:18

    Mention the effect of no Europe? Nope. Poor effort.

  5. Denzel

    May 23, 2017 at 20:52

    Spurs didn’t lose to Leicester they beat them 1.6 away. If Spurs had held on to win at Chelsea and got a draw at West Ham they would have won the title on goal difference. Two matches that cost them the league.

  6. S-P

    May 23, 2017 at 21:21

    @LARS you missed the bit where Spurs had to contend with teams, like West Ham, who were psyched up to beat them, whereas no-one Chelsea faced for months looked in the least bit fussed, let alone prepared to go through the pain barrier, to stop the oil mafiosos – a bit like with Leicester last season.

    Not to worry, though, ‘cos no-one outside of that scummy club actually takes any of their trophies remotely seriously. Just bought trinkets with money embezzled from the Russian people – a billion pound loan that they don’t need to pay back….pffffftttttttt!!! You could take over just about any club in the top two divisions and buy them trophies with that money. A nothing club, who always were nothing, having trophies bought for them by a Ruskie crook. The Chavs must be spool proud LoL ?

  7. donmartins

    May 23, 2017 at 22:15

    The deed is done Chelsea showed reserpine enough to win d trophy let’s look forward to a much better performance from d blues next season.

  8. matt88008

    May 24, 2017 at 06:32

    The main difference is that for more than half the campaign Spurs had to play in the Champion’s League and the Europa League, whereas Chelsea had the luxury of having no European involvement, having been so unbelievably abject the previous season.

    In the final 11 EPL games of the season, when neither side had European involvement Spurs’s record was Won 10, Lost 1 (GF 35/GA 5) and Chelsea’s Won 9, Lost 2 (GF 28/GA 13)

    By extrapolation, if the two sides had been operating on a level playing field for the whole season, Spurs would have won the EPL, comfortably. Factual analysis based on statistics, unlike your opinionated effort.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *