Clubs Compare

Manchester City vs Tottenham

Real strength. Different football profiles.

Manchester City

Premier League · 2026-2027

Rating as of 20 Oct 2026
Power90.7

Tottenham

Premier League · 2026-2027

Rating as of 20 Oct 2026
Power62.1
The football profile

Club DNA

Manchester CityTottenham

Strength Profile · Current

Fixed 0–100 ratings. Power is the Elo baseline; Attack and Defence use a common reference opponent. Form is opponent-adjusted.

Strength profile radarCommon axes run from zero at the centre to 100 at the edge. Exact values appear alongside. A missing metric leaves the shape incomplete. 255075100 Power Attack Defence Form Consistency Squad Availability Manchester City · Power 90.7 ptsManchester City · Attack 91.7 ptsManchester City · Defence 81.7 ptsManchester City · Form 92.5 ptsManchester City · Consistency 61.7 ptsManchester City · Squad Availability 100.0 % Tottenham · Power 62.1 ptsTottenham · Attack 56.0 ptsTottenham · Defence 73.9 ptsTottenham · Form 57.7 ptsTottenham · Consistency 63.2 ptsTottenham · Squad Availability 85.2 % Strength profile radarCommon axes run from zero at the centre to 100 at the edge. Exact values appear alongside. A missing metric leaves the shape incomplete. 255075100 Power Attack Defence Form Consistency SquadAvailability Manchester City · Power 90.7 ptsManchester City · Attack 91.7 ptsManchester City · Defence 81.7 ptsManchester City · Form 92.5 ptsManchester City · Consistency 61.7 ptsManchester City · Squad Availability 100.0 % Tottenham · Power 62.1 ptsTottenham · Attack 56.0 ptsTottenham · Defence 73.9 ptsTottenham · Form 57.7 ptsTottenham · Consistency 63.2 ptsTottenham · Squad Availability 85.2 %
Ratings · 0–100 · Availability is a percentage

Strength comparison

Point gaps · Availability in percentage points

90.7Power62.1
Manchester City +28.6 pts
91.7Attack56.0
Manchester City +35.7 pts
81.7Defence73.9
Manchester City +7.8 pts
92.5Form57.7
Manchester City +34.8 pts
61.7Consistency63.2
Tottenham +1.5 pts
100.0%Squad Availability85.2%
Manchester City +14.8 pp

Consistency measures variation in points minus LOAD90 expected points, centred on the club’s average gap. Higher means less variation, not better results. Squad Availability is the percentage of model-weighted squad available for the last completed match, using its saved pre-match snapshot. It does not predict readiness for the next match. Missing historical data stays unavailable.

What separates them

The Difference

  • Manchester City has the stronger attacking profile.
  • Manchester City shows better recent form.
  • Manchester City has the higher Power rating.
  • Manchester City had more of its weighted squad available for its last completed match.
Descriptive rating gaps, not a match forecast. Small gaps are left out; missing ratings are not compared.

Manchester City · Form 5/5 · Consistency 19/20 covered matches · 3 pre-match / 16 historical forecast backfills · Availability · last completed match 17 Oct 2026

Tottenham · Form 5/5 · Consistency 20/20 covered matches · 2 pre-match / 18 historical forecast backfills · Availability · last completed match 19 Oct 2026

How Consistency works

For each match, gap = points earned − LOAD90 expected points. Consistency = 100 × (1 − SD(gaps) / 3), with SD calculated around the window’s mean gap. The endpoints come from the mathematical bounds of point gaps; this is not a fitted percentile or a forecast factor. A constant positive or negative gap can be consistent.

Current uses the latest 20 completed tracked matches within one year. At least 15 usable forecasts and 75% coverage are required. A 15–19-match score is provisional; comparative Consistency insights require 20 each. Historical backfills are reconstructed expectations, not forecasts archived before kickoff. Result randomness and changes in model calibration can affect the score.

Manchester City · Current gap SD 1.15 points · mean gap 0.33 · Provisional sample

Tottenham · Current gap SD 1.10 points · mean gap -0.30 · Full window

Playing Style · Current

Observed profile · last 10 matches before each club’s reference fixture. Native units and coverage are shown below.

Playing style radarEach axis has its own labelled native range, shared by both clubs and both periods. Grid rings mark quarters of those ranges. Exact values appear alongside; missing data leaves the shape incomplete. Possession 0–100 % Pass accuracy 0–100 % Shots in the box 0–100 % On target share 0–100 % Shot Frequency 0–6 shots/100 passes Corner Pressure 0–12 corners/90 Manchester City · Possession 62.2 %Manchester City · Pass accuracy 89.3 %Manchester City · Shots in the box 68.8 %Manchester City · On target share 35.8 %Manchester City · Shot Frequency 2.7 shots/100 passesManchester City · Corner Pressure 6.4 corners/90 Tottenham · Possession 58.7 %Tottenham · Pass accuracy 87.0 %Tottenham · Shots in the box 66.7 %Tottenham · On target share 24.3 %Tottenham · Shot Frequency 2.8 shots/100 passesTottenham · Corner Pressure 7.1 corners/90 Playing style radarEach axis has its own labelled native range, shared by both clubs and both periods. Grid rings mark quarters of those ranges. Exact values appear alongside; missing data leaves the shape incomplete. Possession 0–100 % Passaccuracy 0–100 % Shots inthe box 0–100 % On targetshare 0–100 % ShotFrequency 0–6 shots/100 passes CornerPressure 0–12 corners/90 Manchester City · Possession 62.2 %Manchester City · Pass accuracy 89.3 %Manchester City · Shots in the box 68.8 %Manchester City · On target share 35.8 %Manchester City · Shot Frequency 2.7 shots/100 passesManchester City · Corner Pressure 6.4 corners/90 Tottenham · Possession 58.7 %Tottenham · Pass accuracy 87.0 %Tottenham · Shots in the box 66.7 %Tottenham · On target share 24.3 %Tottenham · Shot Frequency 2.8 shots/100 passesTottenham · Corner Pressure 7.1 corners/90
Native units · axis ranges shown · larger is not better

How they play

Differences in each metric’s native units

62.2%Possession58.7%
Manchester City +3.5 pp
89.3%Pass accuracy87.0%
Manchester City +2.3 pp
68.8%Shots in the box66.7%
Manchester City +2.0 pp
35.8%On target share24.3%
Manchester City +11.5 pp
2.7Shot Frequency2.8
Tottenham +0.1 shots/100 passes
6.4Corner Pressure7.1
Tottenham +0.7 corners/90

Shot Frequency = shots per 100 passes on the same covered matches: how quickly passing sequences turn into attempts. Corner Pressure = corners per completed 90-minute game. These describe attacking tendencies, not strength; extra time and custom-length games are excluded.

These are observed profiles. League and schedule differences can affect them. The radar uses native axis ranges shared by both clubs and both periods; a larger shape does not imply superiority.

Manchester City · Window 10 matches · before 24 Oct 2026 · Shot Frequency 10/10 · Corner Pressure 10/10 covered regulation matches. Per-metric coverage of the four percentage shares is unavailable.

Tottenham · Window 10 matches · before 24 Oct 2026 · Shot Frequency 10/10 · Corner Pressure 10/10 covered regulation matches. Per-metric coverage of the four percentage shares is unavailable.

Strength Profile · Season Average

Match-sampled averages of available ratings this season, across tracked competitions. These are not time-weighted averages or a measure of consistency.

Strength profile radarCommon axes run from zero at the centre to 100 at the edge. Exact values appear alongside. A missing metric leaves the shape incomplete. 255075100 Power Attack Defence Form Consistency Squad Availability Manchester City · Power 90.3 ptsManchester City · Attack 90.4 ptsManchester City · Defence 89.1 ptsManchester City · Form 93.7 ptsManchester City · Consistency 62.5 ptsManchester City · Squad Availability 96.9 % Tottenham · Power 61.5 ptsTottenham · Form 32.8 ptsTottenham · Consistency 64.4 pts Strength profile radarCommon axes run from zero at the centre to 100 at the edge. Exact values appear alongside. A missing metric leaves the shape incomplete. 255075100 Power Attack Defence Form Consistency SquadAvailability Manchester City · Power 90.3 ptsManchester City · Attack 90.4 ptsManchester City · Defence 89.1 ptsManchester City · Form 93.7 ptsManchester City · Consistency 62.5 ptsManchester City · Squad Availability 96.9 % Tottenham · Power 61.5 ptsTottenham · Form 32.8 ptsTottenham · Consistency 64.4 pts
Ratings · 0–100 · Availability is a percentage

Strength comparison

Point gaps · Availability in percentage points

90.3Power61.5
Manchester City +28.8 pts
90.4Attack—
Shared data unavailable
89.1Defence—
Shared data unavailable
93.7Form32.8
Manchester City +60.9 pts
62.5Consistency64.4
Tottenham +1.9 pts
96.9%Squad Availability—
Shared data unavailable

Consistency measures variation in points minus LOAD90 expected points, centred on the club’s average gap. Higher means less variation, not better results. Squad Availability is the percentage of model-weighted squad available for the last completed match, using its saved pre-match snapshot. It does not predict readiness for the next match. Missing historical data stays unavailable.

What separates them

The Difference

  • Manchester City has the higher average Form value.
  • Manchester City has the higher average Power value.
Descriptive rating gaps, not a match forecast. Small gaps are left out; missing ratings are not compared.

Manchester City · Power 8 · Attack 3 · Defence 3 · Form 5 · Consistency 8 · Squad Availability 3 · 3 pre-match / 5 historical Elo backfills. Minimum 3 observations per average. Consistency averages eligible rolling windows, which overlap; availability uses genuine pre-match snapshots only. Historical Form is reconstructed using the current calibration.

Tottenham · Power 7 · Attack 2 · Defence 2 · Form 4 · Consistency 7 · Squad Availability 2 · 2 pre-match / 5 historical Elo backfills. Minimum 3 observations per average. Consistency averages eligible rolling windows, which overlap; availability uses genuine pre-match snapshots only. Historical Form is reconstructed using the current calibration.

How Consistency works

For each match, gap = points earned − LOAD90 expected points. Consistency = 100 × (1 − SD(gaps) / 3), with SD calculated around the window’s mean gap. The endpoints come from the mathematical bounds of point gaps; this is not a fitted percentile or a forecast factor. A constant positive or negative gap can be consistent.

Current uses the latest 20 completed tracked matches within one year. At least 15 usable forecasts and 75% coverage are required. A 15–19-match score is provisional; comparative Consistency insights require 20 each. Historical backfills are reconstructed expectations, not forecasts archived before kickoff. Result randomness and changes in model calibration can affect the score.

Manchester City · Current gap SD 1.15 points · mean gap 0.33 · Provisional sample

Tottenham · Current gap SD 1.10 points · mean gap -0.30 · Full window

Playing Style · Season Average

Observed profile · league season before each club’s reference fixture. Native units and coverage are shown below.

Playing style radarEach axis has its own labelled native range, shared by both clubs and both periods. Grid rings mark quarters of those ranges. Exact values appear alongside; missing data leaves the shape incomplete. Possession 0–100 % Pass accuracy 0–100 % Shots in the box 0–100 % On target share 0–100 % Shot Frequency 0–6 shots/100 passes Corner Pressure 0–12 corners/90 Manchester City · Possession 64.4 %Manchester City · Pass accuracy 89.3 %Manchester City · Shots in the box 70.0 %Manchester City · On target share 36.3 %Manchester City · Shot Frequency 2.3 shots/100 passesManchester City · Corner Pressure 5.6 corners/90 Tottenham · Possession 60.6 %Tottenham · Pass accuracy 87.9 %Tottenham · Shots in the box 60.3 %Tottenham · On target share 27.3 %Tottenham · Shot Frequency 2.6 shots/100 passesTottenham · Corner Pressure 6.6 corners/90 Playing style radarEach axis has its own labelled native range, shared by both clubs and both periods. Grid rings mark quarters of those ranges. Exact values appear alongside; missing data leaves the shape incomplete. Possession 0–100 % Passaccuracy 0–100 % Shots inthe box 0–100 % On targetshare 0–100 % ShotFrequency 0–6 shots/100 passes CornerPressure 0–12 corners/90 Manchester City · Possession 64.4 %Manchester City · Pass accuracy 89.3 %Manchester City · Shots in the box 70.0 %Manchester City · On target share 36.3 %Manchester City · Shot Frequency 2.3 shots/100 passesManchester City · Corner Pressure 5.6 corners/90 Tottenham · Possession 60.6 %Tottenham · Pass accuracy 87.9 %Tottenham · Shots in the box 60.3 %Tottenham · On target share 27.3 %Tottenham · Shot Frequency 2.6 shots/100 passesTottenham · Corner Pressure 6.6 corners/90
Native units · axis ranges shown · larger is not better

How they play

Differences in each metric’s native units

64.4%Possession60.6%
Manchester City +3.9 pp
89.3%Pass accuracy87.9%
Manchester City +1.4 pp
70.0%Shots in the box60.3%
Manchester City +9.6 pp
36.3%On target share27.3%
Manchester City +9.0 pp
2.3Shot Frequency2.6
Tottenham +0.3 shots/100 passes
5.6Corner Pressure6.6
Tottenham +1.0 corners/90

Shot Frequency = shots per 100 passes on the same covered matches: how quickly passing sequences turn into attempts. Corner Pressure = corners per completed 90-minute game. These describe attacking tendencies, not strength; extra time and custom-length games are excluded.

These are observed profiles. League and schedule differences can affect them. The radar uses native axis ranges shared by both clubs and both periods; a larger shape does not imply superiority.

Manchester City · Window 7 matches · before 24 Oct 2026 · Shot Frequency 7/7 · Corner Pressure 7/7 covered regulation matches. Per-metric coverage of the four percentage shares is unavailable.

Tottenham · Window 7 matches · before 24 Oct 2026 · Shot Frequency 7/7 · Corner Pressure 7/7 covered regulation matches. Per-metric coverage of the four percentage shares is unavailable.

The season so far

Historical Trend

Power · 0–100

Base Power at recorded match dates. Solid lines join saved pre-match ratings; dashed segments include historical Elo backfills. The same fixed scale is used for both clubs.

Season Power historyAvailable pre-match Power observations and historical Elo backfills. Lines connect observations, not daily measurements. Exact dates and values are available in the table below. 0255075100 Manchester City · 2026-08-23 13:00:00 UTC · 89 · backfill Manchester City · 2026-08-28 19:00:00 UTC · 89.3 · backfill Manchester City · 2026-09-05 14:00:00 UTC · 90 · backfill Manchester City · 2026-09-13 15:30:00 UTC · 90.1 · backfill Manchester City · 2026-09-20 13:00:00 UTC · 90.7 · backfill Manchester City · 2026-10-11 15:30:00 UTC · 90.8 · pre Manchester City · 2026-10-14 19:00:00 UTC · 91.7 · pre Manchester City · 2026-10-17 14:00:00 UTC · 90.6 · pre Tottenham · 2026-08-22 16:30:00 UTC · 64.3 · backfill Tottenham · 2026-08-29 16:30:00 UTC · 62.8 · backfill Tottenham · 2026-09-05 14:00:00 UTC · 60.5 · backfill Tottenham · 2026-09-12 16:30:00 UTC · 61.3 · backfill Tottenham · 2026-09-19 11:30:00 UTC · 61.1 · backfill Tottenham · 2026-10-10 16:30:00 UTC · 59.8 · pre Tottenham · 2026-10-19 19:00:00 UTC · 60.8 · pre 22 Aug 202619 Oct 2026
Manchester CityTottenham
View history data and coverage
ClubDate (UTC)PowerSource
Manchester City2026-08-23 13:00:0089.0Historical Elo backfill
Manchester City2026-08-28 19:00:0089.3Historical Elo backfill
Manchester City2026-09-05 14:00:0090.0Historical Elo backfill
Manchester City2026-09-13 15:30:0090.1Historical Elo backfill
Manchester City2026-09-20 13:00:0090.7Historical Elo backfill
Manchester City2026-10-11 15:30:0090.8Saved pre-match
Manchester City2026-10-14 19:00:0091.7Saved pre-match
Manchester City2026-10-17 14:00:0090.6Saved pre-match
Tottenham2026-08-22 16:30:0064.3Historical Elo backfill
Tottenham2026-08-29 16:30:0062.8Historical Elo backfill
Tottenham2026-09-05 14:00:0060.5Historical Elo backfill
Tottenham2026-09-12 16:30:0061.3Historical Elo backfill
Tottenham2026-09-19 11:30:0061.1Historical Elo backfill
Tottenham2026-10-10 16:30:0059.8Saved pre-match
Tottenham2026-10-19 19:00:0060.8Saved pre-match
Chances, finishing & results

Efficiency

From chances to results. Exact values share a scale within each row; colours identify the clubs.

Last 10

Manchester City
Tottenham
ConversionGoals / shots · %
14.5% 10/10 covered
6.3% 10/10 covered
Save RateSaves / shots on target faced · %
68.2% 9/10 covered
63.6% 9/10 covered
Goals − xGFinishing gap · per match
+0.24 10/10 covered
-0.26 10/10 covered
xGA − GAGoals prevented · per match
+0.09 10/10 covered
-0.12 10/10 covered
Shot QualityObserved xG / shot
0.131 10/10 covered
0.081 10/10 covered
Shot VolumeShots / 90
16.5 10/10 covered
14.4 10/10 covered
xG / matchLeague season · fixed window
2.20 7/7 covered
1.07 7/7 covered
xGA / matchLeague season · fixed window
1.42 7/7 covered
1.35 7/7 covered
Points / gameLeague season · fixed window
3.00 7/7 league matches
0.86 7/7 league matches
Points vs expected · Form windowUp to 5 matches · stored pure forecasts
+2.41 5/5 Form window
-0.02 5/5 Form window

Manchester City · Statistics before 24 Oct 2026 · Recent results W · L · W · W · W

Tottenham · Statistics before 24 Oct 2026 · Recent results W · D · L · D · D

League season

Manchester City
Tottenham
ConversionGoals / shots · %
18.6% 7/7 covered
6.1% 7/7 covered
Save RateSaves / shots on target faced · %
72.4% 7/7 covered
62.5% 6/7 covered
Goals − xGFinishing gap · per match
+0.51 7/7 covered
-0.21 7/7 covered
xGA − GAGoals prevented · per match
+0.42 7/7 covered
-0.08 7/7 covered
Shot QualityObserved xG / shot
0.151 7/7 covered
0.076 7/7 covered
Shot VolumeShots / 90
14.6 7/7 covered
14.1 7/7 covered
xG / matchLeague season · fixed window
2.20 7/7 covered
1.07 7/7 covered
xGA / matchLeague season · fixed window
1.42 7/7 covered
1.35 7/7 covered
Points / gameLeague season · fixed window
3.00 7/7 league matches
0.86 7/7 league matches
Points vs expected · Form windowUp to 5 matches · stored pure forecasts
+2.41 5/5 Form window
-0.02 5/5 Form window

Manchester City · Statistics before 24 Oct 2026 · Recent results W · L · W · W · W

Tottenham · Statistics before 24 Oct 2026 · Recent results W · D · L · D · D

Positive Goals − xG means more goals scored than the observed chances predicted. Positive xGA − GA means fewer goals conceded than those chances predicted; it reflects defence and goalkeeping together. Gaps are per covered match and pair goals and xG on the same matches. Shot Quality pairs total xG and total shots. Minimum three known matches per metric; missing data stays unavailable.

Butterfly bars grow from the centre towards each club. Length shows magnitude, not superiority; negative gaps use stripes and a minus sign. Percentages use 0–100%, PPG uses 0–3; other rows share the larger absolute value as their limit. xG, xGA and PPG retain their league-season window. Points vs expected retains the latest up to five completed matches with stored pure forecasts across tracked competitions; results are newest first. These observed metrics are not adjusted for league or opponent strength.

About this comparison

Strength ratings share LOAD90’s fixed scales across leagues. Elo reflects opponent quality; Attack and Defence describe performance against the same reference club on a neutral pitch. Form adjusts for opponents and venue. League Strength is not added a second time. Cross-league ratings remain model estimates; sparse connections between leagues and incomplete data limit precision. Explore the methodology →