copenhagen: What We Know

Alright, let’s talk about Micky van de Ven’s goal against Copenhagen. Everyone’s raving about it, drawing comparisons to Son Heung-min’s Puskas winner. But let's ditch the hyperbole for a minute and look at what the numbers really tell us.

The immediate reaction is understandable. A center-back dribbling through an entire team and scoring a screamer? That's highlight-reel stuff. The article mentions it was his sixth goal of the season. That's… unusual, to say the least. Center backs aren't exactly known for their scoring prowess.

But is it really that shocking, or are we just seeing a shift in how Spurs are playing under Frank? Consider this: Frank himself joked, “It seems like we had Lionel Messi turned into Micky van de Ven.” Hyperbole, sure, but it points to a tactical shift.

The Data Doesn't Lie (Usually)

Van de Ven's goal isn't just a one-off fluke. Tottenham 4 Copenhagen 0: Van de Ven’s wondergoal, Udogie’s impact and Simons’ best display notes he's been making these runs, often ending in assists. He did it for Son against Everton, for Johnson against Old Trafford. The difference this time? He finished it himself. Maybe Frank is encouraging this behavior? It’s hard to say. Details on exactly what instructions Frank gave the team are scarce, but the on-field evidence is mounting.

The xG (expected goals) for the game was Tottenham 3.31 - 0.33 Copenhagen. A massive discrepancy. Spurs were expected to score over three goals. Van de Ven’s goal, while spectacular, contributed only a fraction of that. It's a single data point within a larger trend of attacking football.

And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling. The article mentions that Copenhagen didn't press Spurs at all. That's a tactical choice, and a baffling one. It gave Spurs' defense, including Van de Ven, acres of space to run into. Was Copenhagen intentionally suicidal? Probably not, but it sure looks that way on paper.

The Udogie-Odobert Factor

It's not just Van de Ven. The article highlights the Udogie-Odobert partnership on the left flank. They were "trading which player goes forward on the overlap," causing confusion. Odobert even scored a goal. This suggests a coordinated attacking strategy, not just individual brilliance. Udogie had a shot saved in the first half, while Odobert played a beautiful flick for a move that Kolo Muani should have finished.

Speaking of Kolo Muani, he "probably should’ve had a hat trick." That's not a statistical anomaly; that's poor finishing. But the fact that he was getting chances indicates Spurs were creating opportunities.

Johnson's red card? A potential turning point, but Spurs were "more menacing with 10 men." This is where the narrative starts to diverge from reality, in my opinion. Yes, they scored more goals, but correlation doesn't equal causation. Maybe Copenhagen just collapsed mentally after the sending-off.

The crowd dynamic is also interesting. Boos during the lineups (initially attributed to Spurs fans, then corrected to Copenhagen supporters). Boos for Richarlison when he took the penalty (which he missed). This suggests a fanbase that's quick to turn critical, even during a 4-0 win. Are those fans going to accept Van de Ven taking these risks if one of them leads to a goal on the counter?

The Van de Ven Variable: An Acceptable Risk?

So, is Van de Ven's goal a statistical outlier or the new norm? It's probably somewhere in between. It’s not just a random event; it's a consequence of Frank's tactics, Copenhagen's bizarre lack of pressing, and Van de Ven's unique skillset. But it’s also not something we should expect every game. The sample size is still too small. But one thing is clear: Frank is willing to take risks, even with his center-backs. The question is, will those risks pay off in the long run?

Don't Bet the Farm on Defender Goals