English Premier League

Tottenham v Crystal Palace: Premier League – live

March 6, 2026

7 views

5 minute read

Tottenham v Crystal Palace: Premier League – live

Key events

“If Tottenham do get relegated,” fantasises ~~Declan~~ sorry, Daniel Rice, “do Arsenal fans celebrate next season’s St Totteringham’s day this season?”

“This relegation thing seems to me a bit more nuanced than you suggest,” writers Richard Hirst. “I would be as delighted as the next person to see one of the ‘Big Six’ (does that still apply?) go down, but the owners of Forest and West Ham are not exactly the type to inspire love and affection, so relegation for either or both would be no bad thing. And of course we would all (or almost all) rather see Man Utd go down (sorry) along with Everton, thus ridding the Premier League of the last Fergie acolyte. Anyway, as long as Fulham aren’t involved who really cares?”

I said it! That feelgood fairtytale bit was my attempt at a little joke.

Glasner speaks, saying Guessand has been contributing goals and assist, but isn’t used to so many games so was given a rest. He doesn’t like to change his back three but the same trio played against Wolves and kept a clean sheet; Richards will take the central role and lead the younger men on his outside.

On Spurs, he says every team can win everywhere, so his team are focusing on themselves.

Palace, meanwhile, will look to play off Strand Larsen, with Sarr and Guessand asked to run at defenders, width supplied by the excellent wing-back pairing off Munoz and Mitchell. I quite fancy those two to cause problems, especially if, behind them, Wharton and Kamada are at it with their passing.

So where is the game? I imagine Spurs are playing 4-3-3 – if they are – partly to get down the sides of Palace’s outside centre-backs and in behind their wing-backs. For what it’s worth, 4-4-2 is also a decent antidote to three at the back. Otherwise, they’ll want to serve Solanke cut-backs and low crosses to the front post, with Kolo Muani asked to clear space for him, by carrying the ball, bumping defenders out of the way or both.

I guess Man City 1995-96 is one, going down with a draw against Liverpool after wasting time thinking they were safe, while United won the double. And United, by the way, are in with a good shout of worst day ever, losing the league at Anfield, to Leeds, having not won it in 25 years – Liverpool had done so 11 times in the period – with Ian Rush, who’d never previously bagged against them, scoring.

~~The~~ A problem Spurs have is the teams below them are decent and playing pretty well. I just can’t see a team with a midfield of Anderson, Sangaré and Gibbs-White going down, while West Ham have a good attackers in form – they’ve scored 11 more league goals than the other two. Imagine if they send Spurs sown and Arsenal win the title, perhaps one or two other bits as well; this could be one of the great nightmare seasons (feel free to suggest contenders).

“Consensual doesn’t mean it’s not adversarial,” returns James Humphries. “That’s the key difference between a boxing match and an assault charge, no?

… Honestly, I dunno what my end goal here is. Much like spurs in that respect, I guess.”

But politics isn’t consensual either. Obviously the framework is, but as an endeavour, it is not.

Email! “As a Motherwell fan I have some sympathy with the idea of trying to force teams to play football rather than just kick the opponent into the air (mind you, as an agricultural centre-back I am opposed to it, there’s yer paradox),” begins James Humphries. “But, like: of course football is consensual? It’s a whole bunch of people who, at least notionally, have agreed to be at place x, time y, under rules z.

If someone’s not consenting to playing football, then either they’re being forced to take part in a generally consensual institution (see also: standard views of the democratic state), or they’re just in a spectacularly weird thought-experiment with a bunch of people who are playing football!

(Can you tell what I used to do for work?)”

Bracketeer? But otherwise, politics, say, is consensual according to your tenets, yet it’s also adversarial, so.

Palace make two changes to the side which lost to Manchester United at the weekend, one enforced – Chadi Riad for the suspended Maxence Lacroix – with Evann Guessand in for Brennan Johnson. Jefferson Lerma, out injured for nearly a month, is back on the bench.

Igor Tudor makes his third formation change in three games, presumably pursuing the pretence that one exists which won’t make his team look dreadful; from 4-4-2 at Fulham, it’s now 4-3-3. Good luck, old mate.

Otherwise, Radu Dragusin is left out of the squad altogether – goodness me, imagine how badly you’ve got to play to accomplish that – with Yves Bissouma, Xavi Simons and Conor Gallagher relegated to the bench. Coming in are Souza, Kevin Danso, Pape Matar Sarr and Mathys Tel.

Teams!

Tottenham Hotspur (4-3-3): Vicario; Porro, Danso, Van de Ven, Souza; Palhinha, Sarr, Gray; Kolo Muani, Solanke, Tel. Subs: Kinsky, Austin, Simons, Bissouma, Richarlison, Gallagher, Olusesi, Kyerematen, Rowswell.

Crystal Palace (3-4-2-1): Henderson; Canvot, Richards, Riad; Munoz, Wharton, Kamada, Mitchell; Sarr, Guessand; Strand Larsen. Subs: Benitez, Lerma, Pino, Johnson, Uche, Clyne Hughes, Sosa, Devenny.

Referee: Andy Madley (Huddersfield)

Preamble

Football is not a consensual pursuit … cue someone saying yes it is. But him – of course it’s a him – aside, we can surely all agree that we never agree, and not just to force a second most ingenious paradox into an already exceedingly self-conscious paragraph.

However! There is surely not a single individual who doesn’t support Spurs who doesn’t also want them to go down; on that, the entirety of the footballing community is in concurrence.

Usually, footballing antipathy is extremely specific, and obviously there’s the Tottenham Way thing, the first floatation thing, Alan Sugar, and so on. Except feelings would be similar were it any of the other rich clubs in danger: in an era dominated by money, it failing to such unprecedented degree would be astonishing, not spursy but spursiest.

Actually, strike that: going down and losing the Champions League final to a last-minute own goal having led 6-0 at half-time would be spursiest, but you get the point.

Things that seem too good to be true usually are, teaches the truism. But at this stage, with Spurs just a point ahead of Nottingham Forest and West Ham – what a feelgood fairytale it’ll be if one of those stays up – having not won in the league since the end of December, it’s pretty much the only reason to think they’ll survive. Just consider how much Igor Tudor, in situ not even three weeks, despises them already – with good reason.

As for the visitors, Palace were in danger themselves not that long ago, but now they’re safe and still in Europe, they might be the team Spurs would pick to face this evening. Win, and the mood’ll brighten; fail so to do, and consensus might start feeling like prescience.

Kick-off: 8pm GMT