Fulham v Tottenham: Spurs’ away woes offer Cottage Cupset hope
Published:
Wherever you look, a potential banana skin lies in every Emirates FA Cup Fifth Round fixture this weekend, but one of the strongest cases surely comes in west London.
Fulham host Tottenham, and between the hosts’ goal-scoring nous and the visitors’ travel woes, we could see a rocking Craven Cottage celebrate a giant-killing here.
The Championship side are still harbouring hopes of a play-off spot under Slavisa Jokanovic this term, and have lost just one of their last 11 on home soil.
That run included the confident Cup dispatch of Premier League Hull City, and in total, the west Londoners have netted 30 goals in that spell.
And that’s something Tottenham boss Mauricio Pochettino will be acutely aware of as he brings his side back from another disappointing Thursday night in Europe.
A drab 1-0 loss to Ghent in the Europa League means the north Londoners have won just two of their last 14 away from White Hart Lane.
They’ve also failed to score in their last three road ties.
The Championship outfit began the week at 3/1, but consistent support for the Cottagers has seen them come in to 13/5.
Another problem for the Premier League outfit is just how many players are grabbing goals for the hosts.
Some 11 players have scored twice or more for Fulham this season, and Chris Martin leads the way on 10.
The 28-year-old is 6/1 to net first, while Spurs will also do well to contain Lucas Piazon and Floyd Ayite.
It remains to be seen what sort of team Pochettino puts out here, especially after a midweek trip to Europe.
It wouldn’t be a surprise to see the Argentine opt for Heung-Min Son or Vincent Janssen over Harry Kane.
We’re 5/1 on each Son or Janssen putting Spurs 1-0 up as they look to avoid a banana skin this weekend.
But Fulham fans will have fond memories of Tottenham’s last Emirates FA Cup trip to Craven Cottage, when the hosts resoundingly won 4-0.
A similar scoreline seems unlikely, but the result could certainly be the same.
All Odds and Markets are correct as of the date of publishing
