Should Spurs Be Concerned About Their Attack?

Should Spurs Be Concerned About Their Attack?

Thomas Frank’s early tenure as Tottenham Hotspur manager has produced mixed results. Spurs sit ninth in the Premier League, yet only Manchester City, Arsenal and Chelsea have scored more than their 20 league goals to date—an output that raises questions about the true effectiveness and sustainability of their attacking play.

Despite being the league’s fourth-highest scorers, some supporters have voiced concern over the team’s offensive performances, with Sunday’s 4-1 defeat at leaders Arsenal and just a single home league win exacerbating the debate.

This analysis examines Frank’s tactical approach, Spurs’ underlying numbers, and whether their goal return is a cause for concern.

A Sharp Contrast Between Goals Scored and Expected Goals

Opta data highlights a significant discrepancy. Spurs may be fourth for goals scored, but they are positioned fourth from bottom in expected goals (xG). They have netted 20 goals from an xG of 11.2—overperforming by nearly nine goals, the largest margin in the league.

Arsenal, Manchester City and Chelsea have also outperformed their xG, but by significantly smaller amounts (2.7, 2.0 and 0.5 respectively), suggesting their scoring patterns are more sustainable across a full season.

Tottenham currently boast the best shot conversion rate in the division. The analytical question is whether this level of finishing can realistically continue.

Frank’s Wide-Driven Attacking Blueprint

The foundation of Spurs’ approach under Frank is clear: create and exploit crossing situations. His system relies heavily on structured wide play and coordinated movement to manufacture high-quality delivery zones.

Key features include:

• Dual-footed crossing options on each flank, with Pedro Porro and Mohammed Kudus enabling both inswinging and outswinging deliveries.
• Three primary crossing zones: wide areas, half-spaces, and underlapping central channels inside the box—often reached by full-backs or midfielders.
• Small-sided wide combinations, where two or three players rotate to carve out a yard of space for a cross.
• Heavy box occupation, with attackers timing runs into gaps between defenders.

Richarlison’s two goals against Burnley are classic examples of this approach: late runs peeling off the back line to meet wide service.

Frank also values the defensive security that wide-focused attacks provide. With Joao Palhinha and Rodrigo Bentancur positioned behind the ball, Spurs minimise risk by avoiding central turnovers. When play does move through central areas, both midfielders typically choose safer passes that funnel possession back to the flanks.

Pressing and Set-Pieces as Secondary Chance-Creation Tools

Frank views pressing as an offensive mechanism. Spurs aggressively counter-press to force errors in advanced areas, creating transitional opportunities through the middle when opponents are disorganised—such as Mathys Tel’s goal against Leeds.

Set-pieces remain a major weapon, as they were under Frank’s Brentford:

• Six goals from set-pieces (fifth-most in the league).
• Heavy reliance on second-phase situations—recycling cleared corners into wide areas where opponents cannot reorganise quickly.
• High box occupancy immediately after corners, enhancing cross-to-shot frequency.

The 3-0 win over Everton epitomised this, with 1.04 of their 1.72 xG coming from dead-ball situations and two goals scored directly from corners.

Are Spurs Creating Enough Quality Chances?

Despite scoring freely, Tottenham’s underlying data raises concerns:

• 110 non-penalty shots—the second fewest in the league (ahead of only Burnley).
• Only 24.2% of attacks through the middle, reflecting over-reliance on wide play.
• Predictability against deep blocks, where back-five systems are comfortable defending crosses.

Frank acknowledges Spurs are only “OK” at attacking the last line. As chemistry builds between wide combinations and Destiny Udogie returns to provide natural left-footed delivery, the team should create more consistent crossing angles.

However, Spurs’ limited central creativity is restricting their ability to break down low blocks. Palhinha and Bentancur’s focus on rest defence leaves little central progression, making the team overly dependent on wide and set-piece patterns.

Integrating creative midfielders—Xavi Simons, the injured James Maddison, and Dejan Kulusevski—will be crucial for diversifying Spurs’ attacking profile.

Are Spurs' Goal Numbers Sustainable?

Right now, Spurs operate in explosive bursts rather than through sustained possession and pressure. Their game model—pressing, set-pieces, direct wide play—is efficient but heavily reliant on fine margins.

This explains the gulf between their goals scored and expected goals:

• The system can produce goals.
• But its predictability and reliance on clinical finishing create questions about long-term consistency.

Frank’s tactical pillars will continue to generate opportunities, but for Spurs to maintain their scoring levels over a full season, they must evolve:

• Add more central threat.
• Become less predictable in settled possession.
• Retain the strong structural foundations in wide and set-piece play.

It remains early in Frank’s reign, but Spurs will need to build a more balanced, possession-oriented attacking identity if they hope to sustain their current output and climb the Premier League table.