As far as underserved victories goes - Page 8

Riviera · 21st January 2012, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Exile

No it wasn't, that implies there were testing shots and clear chances for them left right and centre. They had one free kick that worried Mig and that was it second half.

We've got to get out of the mindset that holding a team at arm's length isn't 'getting battered' or 'The Alamo'.

Correct.

sonson · 21st January 2012, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hetzkes Ballet Teacher

Why? He's absolutely spot on. We got a footballing lesson today, but snuck it on two quality strikes, which they couldn't muster despite dominating possession for 75% of the game.

It's strange really. In the Bruce part of the season we sometimes didn't get the points that our general play deserved. In the MON part of the season, we're getting the points that our general play didn't deserve, based on some quality goalscoring and valiant back line defending by players that Bruce signed.

I'm starting to believe in pixie dust. MON has it, Bruce didn't.

Got a footballing lession in posesison football sure. But we often had the most posession under Bruce. And like Swansea, played it in front of the back four. If teams realise you've got no penetration it's quite safe for them to let you have the ball. Swansea looked classy but impotent.

We gave them a lesson in what counts in football-creating chances and taking them while denying the opposition the same. Thought it was an excellent perfromance from us in this regard myself.

Mr Redknapp · 21st January 2012, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonson

Got a footballing lession in posesison football sure. But we often had the most posession under Bruce. And like Swansea, played it in front of the back four. If teams realise you've got no penetration it's quite safe for them to let you have the ball. Swansea looked classy but impotent.

We gave them a lesson in what counts in football-creating chances and taking them while denying the opposition the same. Thought it was an excellent perfromance from us in this regard myself.

thiis.

Howard the Duck · 21st January 2012, 05:20 PM

Unfortunately a lot of our fans don't seem to understand what we are trying to do in games under O'Neill. Everyone around me was getting very frustrated and on the players backs big time in the second half. Ironically enough it's a lot of the same people who would shout on about Bruce being tactically naive!

Does no one remember when O'Neill brought his Villa sides here? I'd always go away saying how we battered them and how lucky they were - can't be coincidence.

little e · 21st January 2012, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonson

Got a footballing lession in posesison football sure. But we often had the most posession under Bruce. And like Swansea, played it in front of the back four. If teams realise you've got no penetration it's quite safe for them to let you have the ball. Swansea looked classy but impotent.

We gave them a lesson in what counts in football-creating chances and taking them while denying the opposition the same. Thought it was an excellent perfromance from us in this regard myself.

No we didn't. MON knew that this was their game and applied his tactics accordingly. Apart from that you're right

owenrsmitchell · 21st January 2012, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Exile

Were we? I think we recognised that it wasn't worth trying to outpass them, kept them at arm's length comfortably and took our chances when they came along. We out-thought them.

My thoughts exactly. Let swansea pass the ball about all they like but in last third shut them out. Then take chances after frustrating them. Like 1980's liverpool, MON got it spot on tactically for me.

Hetzkes Ballet Teacher · 21st January 2012, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelford_safc

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, I'm simply frustrated he can't enjoy a 2-0 victory after the shite bruce served up. Why sit and pick at negatives?

Imagine that game without the two moments of Sess/Gardner genius, and with the pie eater on the sidelines instead of MON.

It would have been more "shite that Bruce served up". FACT.

stubber · 21st January 2012, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Exile

No it wasn't, that implies there were testing shots and clear chances for them left right and centre. They had one free kick that worried Mig and that was it second half.

We've got to get out of the mindset that holding a team at arm's length isn't 'getting battered' or 'The Alamo'.

Nah, they kept coming again and again & we were unable to hold the ball up top. On another day they'd have easily had a couple of goals. Although we defended well, I was mightily relieved to see the second hit the back of the net.

SedgefieldMackem · 21st January 2012, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Exile

No it wasn't, that implies there were testing shots and clear chances for them left right and centre. They had one free kick that worried Mig and that was it second half.

We've got to get out of the mindset that holding a team at arm's length isn't 'getting battered' or 'The Alamo'.

Stubber has been biased ever since the young upstart Catenaccio destroyed the W-M systems of his youth.

The Exile · 21st January 2012, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stubber

Nah, they kept coming again and again & we were unable to hold the ball up top. On another day they'd have easily had a couple of goals. Although we defended well, I was mightily relieved to see the second hit the back of the net.

How many clear chances did they have?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SedgefieldMackem

Stubber has been biased ever since the young upstart Catenaccio destroyed the W-M systems of his youth.

Don't get him started on The Danubian Whirl.