|
Post by peterthornesboots on Aug 29, 2015 19:29:56 GMT
Predicted it in the Lawro thread. Will we ever beat a Pulis team, or even score against them!? It's doing my head in! He has the measure of us time and time again. For the opening half an hour we were absolutely dominant and it was only a matter of time before we broke them down. It is hard to comprehend what we were doing in terms of discipline with the red cards. We would have comfortably have won with 11 men, it's our own fault that we shot ourselves in both feet!
|
|
Zero
Youth Player
Exodus, ascend the plain.
Posts: 480
|
Post by Zero on Aug 29, 2015 20:37:40 GMT
Ten men could be a relatively significant disadvantage, for Stoke that is, that might be a misleading impression of the performance with nine men when they were ahead of the game in any case, you would surely want eleven men before making such statements, or to be an actual Spanish team against another actual Spanish team as well. Unless you mean the scoreline, in which case a draw would still not be a win. I need subtitles for that one. You wouldn't of.* * Like, personally. The occasional cross would be enough for a high scoreline in their favour. K.
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Aug 29, 2015 20:46:47 GMT
I need subtitles for that one. You wouldn't of.* * Like, personally. The occasional cross would be enough for a high scoreline in their favour. K. We played for about one hour with 9 men. At this level, that would usually lead to a thorough spanking. Yet they still only managed 51% possession - which is genuinely shocking. We also had pretty much the same number of shots, both on target and off. On that basis, I'm fairly confident they would not have beaten us if we had had ten men. I don't understand what you are saying about Spanish teams.
|
|
Zero
Youth Player
Exodus, ascend the plain.
Posts: 480
|
Post by Zero on Aug 29, 2015 21:15:51 GMT
You wouldn't of.* * Like, personally. The occasional cross would be enough for a high scoreline in their favour. K. We played for about one hour with 9 men. At this level, that would usually lead to a thorough spanking. Yet they still only managed 51% possession - which is genuinely shocking. We also had pretty much the same number of shots, both on target and off. On that basis, I'm fairly confident they would not have beaten us if we had had ten men. I don't understand what you are saying about Spanish teams. In Spain, it might be common for a team such as Real Madrid to be relatively confident going into a match with a lower- or mid- table team with 10 men for say half or some amount of the game, Stoke aren't such a team and playing with 10 men isn't something that can be shrugged off based on one's form with 9 men, during which hour the team did of course fall behind and spent most of that time in this state. In such a situation it isn't entirely unexpected that a 9 man team is going to have to do most of the work to get back into the game, the problem is that it's harder to do so, and having 10 men presents defensive difficulties (for Stoke) and scoring isn't as much a matter of course unless the other team invite Stoke through with 10 men as well, certainly not enough for a confident conclusion rather than the usual approach in such a scenario between two mid-table teams, separated by about 4 inconsequential places in this case last season - a shift in the overall dynamic of the game and hoping for a draw with 10 men with the possibility of nicking it. (They weren't exactly the same teams throughout ofc.) It seems like the performance which is being drawn on might be overly situational given that otherwise it might be misleading to posit such a disparity between the two mid-table teams discussed, at least in the direction suggested. If Bromwich Albion were playing Muniesa then there might be more reasons for confidence.
|
|