Were Leicester really good or Tottenham really bad? | OneFootball

Leicester City attained a somewhat surprise victory against Tottenham Hotspur this weekend. We wonder whether the Foxes were very competent and completely committed in their performance. Conversely, was the actual reason for Spurs' defeat because they are in fact so poor at present?

Leicester City's beneficial day in the capital

The severely struggling Leicester City travelled to north London on Sunday. Tottenham Hotspur Stadium was the venue for the latest Foxes contest. And you could be excused for believing this would be yet another successive Premier League defeat for the King Power outfit.

You could argue that performances have declined even further under LCFC manager Ruud van Nistelrooy. Steve Cooper didn't get the best out of the squad he managed on Filbert Way. And, following a brief change in fortunes, the team the Dutchman inherited reverted to its old self. Or worse.

City most recently lost to Fulham in a rather concerning way. Chances were made but often squandered and certainly not capitalised on. Naturally another loss is consequently expected when the subsequent opponent is a traditional so-called big six EPL club.

However, Tottenham are simply not what they were. Or, more accurately, not what they should be. While Spurs are entertaining with Ange Postecoglou at the helm - they are amazingly penetrable. THFC are regularly terrific in attack, yet their boss failed to instill any defensive rigidity. They are completely lacking.

Were the Foxes really that good or were Tottenham Hotspur very bad?

It is true that Tottenham slightly dominated statistically. Although a solid and thoughtful game plan can sometimes prevail. Dedication from the goalkeeper through to the striker gives you a far greater opportunity of three points at this level too.