We use cookies to measure how the site is used so we can improve it. Change your choice anytime via “Manage cookies” in the footer. See our Privacy Policy.
Four league games, no goals: what is going wrong with De Zerbi’s Tottenham?
Spurs are getting plenty of the ball, but too few attacks end with a useful shot. The numbers and De Zerbi’s own explanations point to a problem bigger than finishing—and more specific than a broken system.
By the Oddsivio team·8 min read
Tottenham had 62% of the ball against Everton. They took 14 shots. Only two were on target. By the end of another 0–0, the question was less about how often Spurs reached the opposition half than what they did when they got there. Match statistics
Four Premier League games into 2026/27, Roberto De Zerbi’s side have two points and no goals. The evidence points to a combination: attacks losing their way at the final pass or movement, an attacking group still coming together, and chances that have gone unconverted. There is work to do before the finish as well as at the finish.
The league distinction matters. Spurs beat Charlton 5–1 in the League Cup and, since the Everton draw, scored through Conor Gallagher in a 3–1 cup defeat at Liverpool on 15 September. This is an analysis of their opening four league matches, through 12 September, researched on 18 September. Tottenham’s results · Liverpool match report
AI-generated editorial illustration. A conceptual image, not a photograph of a real match or moment.
The same zero, four different performances
The results look monotonous. The performances behind them are less uniform. Here is the opening run, with Tottenham’s shot totals from Oddsivio’s saved match statistics:
22 August: Brentford 3–0 Tottenham. Nine shots, four on target. Spurs faced 26 attempts at the other end. Match details
29 August: Tottenham 0–2 Newcastle. Seventeen shots, six on target; Newcastle scored with both of their on-target efforts.
5 September: Nottingham Forest 0–0 Tottenham. Eleven shots, none on target. Match details
12 September: Tottenham 0–0 Everton. Fourteen shots, two on target, despite 62% possession. Match details
That is 51 shots and 12 on target. More revealingly, the two draws produced just two on-target attempts from 25 shots. Those games were goalless throughout: Spurs cannot explain all their attacking difficulties as the consequence of chasing an early deficit.
Possession can help a team control where a game is played. It cannot tell us whether a winger chose the right pass, a midfielder arrived in the box, or a striker got a clean sight of goal. Tottenham’s results make those distinctions worth following.
Missed chances matter. So does the supply
Expected goals, or xG, estimates the scoring probability of each shot and adds those probabilities together. It helps separate the quality of the chances from the final score, although it is a model rather than a verdict on what a team deserved.
Oddsivio’s saved figures give Spurs 0.47 xG at Brentford, 1.04 against Newcastle and 1.06 at Forest: 2.57 across those three matches, from 37 shots. Brentford · Newcastle · Forest
Zero goals is below that three-game estimate. Missed chances and opposition goalkeeping belong in the explanation. But 2.57 xG across three matches also gives little basis for saying the attack is working beautifully and only the finishing needs to catch up.
Those 37 attempts averaged roughly 0.07 xG apiece—about a seven-in-100 scoring chance per shot in that model. An average hides individual openings, but it shows why counting attempts alone can flatter an attack. Seventeen shots do not automatically mean seventeen good opportunities.
For the Everton draw, Opta recorded 0.64 xG for Tottenham and 1.17 for Everton. Spurs had more of the ball and more shots, but Everton’s attempts carried the greater combined scoring probability in that model. That strengthens the case for looking at the chances Spurs create, not just the ones they miss. Opta’s Everton match report
There is another limit: ordinary shot-based xG starts when somebody shoots. A misplaced square pass or a cross with nobody arriving can disappear without adding anything to the total. Improving those situations would mean creating better chances, not simply finishing the existing ones better. Four matches cannot tell us how much of either problem will persist.
The move can fail before the finish
De Zerbi’s account of the Forest draw is useful because it identifies a decision, not just a mood. He described an attack in which Omar Marmoush shot while Andy Robertson overlapped, with Mohammed Kudus available towards the far post. In the coach’s reading, using the overlap would have produced a better opening. That is his assessment of the move, not proof that the alternative would have ended in a goal. De Zerbi’s Forest press conference
Against Everton, there were also moments when the delivery reached its target. Tottenham’s official report describes Robertson finding Jan Paul van Hecke at the back post with a fifth-minute free-kick; the defender sent his half-volley over. Later, Marmoush released Robertson on an overlap, but Pickford cut out the delivery. One attack ended with a missed shot; another never reached a finisher. Tottenham’s Everton report
The coach’s subsequent criticism was specific. He said Mateus Fernandes needed to enter the penalty area when Robertson crossed. After Everton, he also explained that his conversation with Mathys Tel concerned the forward’s body position and staying inside to receive deliveries. 14 September press conference · Everton press conference
That gives fans something concrete to examine. When a full-back gets forward, who is offering the next pass? Who is arriving beyond the striker? Does the player receiving the ball face a shooting opportunity or have to stop and rearrange himself? These are plausible points of improvement supported by the reported examples, not a full tactical diagnosis from four scorelines.
The names on the teamsheet have had little time together
It is easy to discuss Tottenham’s attacking options as if every player has had four full games to settle. The league minutes tell a different story.
Sávio has played 151 minutes, starting twice. Marmoush has played 251 minutes across three starts. James Maddison has only 35 minutes from two substitute appearances. Dominic Solanke made his first league start of the season against Everton. These figures cover this article’s four-match cohort; player profiles can display broader, all-competition totals. Official Everton lineup
Sávio’s recorded five key passes in those 151 minutes offer a modest sign of supply. A key pass leads to a teammate’s shot; it does not necessarily create a clear chance. It is evidence that some attacks are reaching a shooter, not grounds to announce that the new attack has clicked.
De Zerbi has pointed to late arrivals and interrupted preparation. After Everton, he said the full group had only recently begun working together and argued that players were not yet ready to sustain the opening half-hour’s performance. That is relevant context from the coach. It does not establish how much of the drought comes from fitness, confidence, selection or his instructions. His post-match explanation
Nor is every missing option an injury story. Richarlison’s absence from the registered league squad, and De Zerbi’s confirmation that he would not play at Liverpool either, make his situation a separate squad-management issue. The available evidence cannot tell us what results a different selection would have produced. De Zerbi on the squad
There is counter-evidence to a total collapse
Newcastle is the clearest warning against treating every blank as the same failure. Spurs had six shots on target and led 1.04–0.75 on the saved xG figures, yet lost 2–0. The club’s report describes Robertson’s shot and van Hecke’s header being saved before half-time. Tottenham did create openings while the score was level. Newcastle match statistics · Club report
The two clean sheets that followed also matter. They brought points after the opening defeats. But a clean sheet says nothing by itself about the quality of Spurs’ attack, and Everton had chances of their own. Progress at one end can coexist with frustration at the other.
Opponent strength adds perspective. In Oddsivio’s ratings saved before kickoff, Spurs and Newcastle were 1869 and 1879; Spurs and Everton were 1848 and 1866. Forest was similarly close, while Brentford had the larger advantage, 1909 to 1841. These Elo ratings summarise past results across rated competitions. They show competitive opponents, not a run against four vastly superior sides—and do not make any fixture easy. Newcastle’s pre-match context · Everton · Brentford
The Liverpool cup goal offers a specific positive: Gallagher headed in Fernandes’ corner at the back post. Tottenham found a receiver and a finish from a set-piece. Both teams rotated heavily, however, and a cup goal from a corner leaves the questions about their league attacking play open. Official Liverpool report
What to watch against Aston Villa
Aston Villa visit on 19 September, with kickoff scheduled for 12:30 BST. The Premier League’s preview identifies two sides still seeking their first league win. That makes the result important, but the next performance can tell us more than whether the zero finally disappears. Premier League preview
Watch the receivers when the ball goes wide. Are there runners in the box, and does the delivery find someone able to shoot?
Look beyond possession. Are Spurs turning their attacks into cleaner attempts and making the goalkeeper work?
Check what lasts. Does the threat continue beyond the opening half-hour, including after substitutions?
A first goal would bring relief. A more convincing improvement would be an attack that repeatedly connects the approach play to the finish. That is the part Tottenham can work on—and the part supporters can judge without waiting for another four-match headline.
About the data
This analysis uses Tottenham’s first four Premier League matches of 2026/27, ending on 12 September, with records retrieved on 18 September. Cups and friendlies are excluded from the league figures. The Brentford, Newcastle and Forest xG figures come from Oddsivio’s saved match data; the Everton figures come from Opta’s match report. We keep those sources separate rather than combine them into a four-game xG total. The saved events record no Tottenham penalty attempts or own goals benefiting Spurs in that cohort. Brentford’s xG includes a penalty they missed; no non-penalty comparison is claimed.
Team shot totals come from Oddsivio’s match statistics. Tottenham’s Forest verdict gives 12 Spurs shots, while our saved feed gives 11; the 51-shot total consistently uses our feed. Player minutes cited above agree across the checked player logs and lineup records; we avoid comparisons where those minute definitions differ. Tactical sequences are attributed to club reports or the coach, not presented as our own footage analysis. Four games remain a small sample.
