James Maddison’s early substitution in Tottenham’s 1-0 defeat against Crystal Palace on October 27 raised eyebrows, particularly given his impressive performance during the match.
Managed by Ange Postecoglou, Spurs struggled to find their rhythm, yet Maddison stood out as one of the few creative sparks in a lackluster display. This leads to the question: why was he pulled off in the 62nd minute when he seemed to be contributing positively?
Despite not yet completing a full 90 minutes in the Premier League this season, Maddison has consistently shown his value on the pitch. His early exit came just 31 minutes after Crystal Palace’s Jean-Philippe Mateta scored the decisive goal in the 31st minute, leaving Tottenham little time to respond. With only 62 minutes under his belt, Maddison’s contributions included two shots on target—yielding a perfect accuracy rate—and a total expected goals on target (xGOT) of 0.28, according to FotMob statistics.
Maddison’s impact was evident as he ventured into the Palace box twice and completed five passes into the final third. He maintained a solid pass completion rate of 78%, successfully executing 28 out of 36 attempts, including one cross and a long ball. His ability to create opportunities highlighted his potential as a key player in breaking down defenses, especially when the team appeared stagnant.
Defensively, Maddison also contributed, registering five ball recoveries and three defensive actions, which included a clearance and two attempted tackles. This willingness to track back underscores his commitment to the team’s overall performance, showcasing his versatility as a midfielder.
However, one area where Tottenham struggled throughout the match was in the midfield battle. Maddison won five of his nine ground duels (56%), yet only managed to win one of two aerial duels.
The decision to substitute Maddison early is particularly puzzling, given that he was one of the few players on the pitch capable of influencing the game positively. With more minutes, who knows what further creativity and opportunities he could have generated in the final stages of the match?
The lack of trust shown by Postecoglou in Maddison’s endurance raises concerns about the manager’s willingness to rely on the England international for the full duration of matches.
Maddison’s situation is frustrating for both him and Spurs fans. His performance demonstrated not only technical skill but also a desire to impact the game both offensively and defensively. If Postecoglou continues to limit his time on the pitch, Maddison may struggle to find a rhythm or develop the kind of form that could transform Tottenham’s attacking play.
Ultimately, until Postecoglou adjusts his perception of Maddison’s fitness and durability, it may be a while before the talented midfielder is given the opportunity to complete a full 90 minutes for Tottenham. His potential remains undeniable, but the ongoing rotation may stifle his ability to showcase it fully, leaving fans wondering what he could achieve with more consistent playtime.
In a season where Spurs are seeking to solidify their position in the league, Maddison’s contributions could prove vital—if only given the chance to prove himself over the full duration of a match.