| The Bottom Line 15:40 - Dec 7 with 4956 views | macthejack |
West Ham were the better team than us today and they got the victory they deserved. The refereeing decisions are irrelevant. Players did not perform to their best and despite all the talk we failed to deal with Andy Carroll. Pick ourselves up and dust ourselves down for the Spurs game, onwards and upwards!
COYS! |  | | |  |
| The Bottom Line on 21:35 - Dec 7 with 995 views | Parlay |
| The Bottom Line on 21:30 - Dec 7 by LeonisGod |
I'm largely with you on this Lisa. It's becoming a very obvious tactic of ours to conced possession, retain shape and then hit on the counter. It makes for pretty horrible stats (which catches out the stat warriors on here) and nervy viewing at times, but often results in Fab barely getting his gloves dirty. It's the complete opposite to Laudrup last year, when we were left so exposed at times it was scarey. I'm not sure I like it, but it is effective (as our position shows).
That could have been a different result (bony sliced wide and Bony off the bar). But equally that would have been harsh on Wet Spam who deserved the win because they took their chances. I'm not sure Garry dealt with the sending off very well, but that's another arguements on another thread.... |
But surely the stat shows they had more chances and more shots on target as well as more goals?
Whether it was out intention to let them play or not doesn't mean we can claim to not have been outplayed. The fact is Fabiański did get his gloves dirty on many occasions, far more than their keeper.
To say we had 2 chances and they had 10 but we wanted them to have more so we played better is just bizarre.
Possession isn't everything, its what you do with it that determined who played better and they did a lot more with it to endanger us than we did to endanger them, that can be argued and as a result we were outplayed and they were excellent value for their win. |  |
| |
| The Bottom Line on 21:41 - Dec 7 with 981 views | LeonisGod |
| The Bottom Line on 21:35 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
But surely the stat shows they had more chances and more shots on target as well as more goals?
Whether it was out intention to let them play or not doesn't mean we can claim to not have been outplayed. The fact is Fabiański did get his gloves dirty on many occasions, far more than their keeper.
To say we had 2 chances and they had 10 but we wanted them to have more so we played better is just bizarre.
Possession isn't everything, its what you do with it that determined who played better and they did a lot more with it to endanger us than we did to endanger them, that can be argued and as a result we were outplayed and they were excellent value for their win. |
where did I say they didn't deserve the win? |  | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 22:03 - Dec 7 with 951 views | Parlay |
| The Bottom Line on 21:41 - Dec 7 by LeonisGod |
where did I say they didn't deserve the win? |
If a team deserved to win then by definition they put their game plan into more effective action than the other. We were outplayed and thus they deserve their win.
To suggest otherwise is sour grapes or a deluded sense of privilege. We were well beaten and deservedly so, hats off to them. Sometimes the opponent is just better on the day, some people see that as an offensive term these days.
Its football. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 22:05]
| |
| |
| The Bottom Line on 23:34 - Dec 7 with 896 views | JJ08 |
| The Bottom Line on 16:26 - Dec 7 by londonlisa2001 |
no, not at all. In fact I'm being the opposite of emotional about it all.
We weren't outplayed. The game could have gone either way. We had more clear cut chances than they did if anything until the past 10 minutes when we were a player short. I'm pointing out that I'm not being swayed by 45 minutes of pumping high balls into our box as 'dominating us'. |
West ham had 7 shots on target swansea had 2. They put 37 yes 37 crosses into the box. That sort of knocks your theory into the water. How can we have more clear cut chances if we didnt have as many shots on target as they had goals. 37 crosses into the box. Not long straight balls. 37 crosses from wing play. I think your views are very emotional. And blinded |  | | |
| The Bottom Line on 23:46 - Dec 7 with 880 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Bottom Line on 23:34 - Dec 7 by JJ08 |
West ham had 7 shots on target swansea had 2. They put 37 yes 37 crosses into the box. That sort of knocks your theory into the water. How can we have more clear cut chances if we didnt have as many shots on target as they had goals. 37 crosses into the box. Not long straight balls. 37 crosses from wing play. I think your views are very emotional. And blinded |
Because it doesn't work like that.
For example - the chance where Bony sliced the ball wide of the goal (not by much) in the first half doesn't show as a shot on target. Similarly when he hit the cross bar. Similarly when Gylfi had a good chance and it hit one of their players when we were 1 up.
On the other hand, when on several occasions one of their players looped a header into Fabianski's arms, it counts as a shot on target.
Fabianski made 1 good save. Tremmel did the same. And Sakho hit the bottom of the post once right at the end when Carroll was yelling at him to cross. We had good chances as well and, as has been the case all too often, we didn't take them.
Your point re crosses though doesn't surprise me in the slightest. There were at least 4 or 5 occasions when they had a fre kick in their own half and hit it into our box. And crosses into the box counts stuff like that.
I'm not remotely emotional about any of it (apart from the red card was a crap decision). I fully expected us to lose up there and we did. As I said earlier, I would have more faith in us picking up points at Arsenal or Liverpool than at West Ham - they are the sort of team we always do badly against. Doesn't mean we were outplayed though. You can play badly, and, indeed lose, without being outplayed and that's what I think happened.
Perhaps you are being a bit emotional due to the fact that Jonjo has lost his place in the team and therefore you are looking for negatives.
It probably doesn't matter much, but for what it's worth, I would have taken Britton off and put Jonjo on at the start of the second half. I thought Britton was poor today and I believe that Jonjo's driving runs through midfield may have worked better with Ki sitting back. Leon's mistake led to the incident leading up to their second goal, and he should have cleared the ball off the line as well, not headed it into our net. |  | | |
| The Bottom Line on 23:50 - Dec 7 with 870 views | karnataka |
| The Bottom Line on 16:16 - Dec 7 by londonlisa2001 |
of course it changed. West Ham were playing pretty well, but weren't creating much and there was always a chance of us carving them apart again (as we had done about 3 times previously, not including our goal) and getting an equaliser.
We had to just gamble when we went to 10, although even then we had a bit of joy for about 5 minutes when we could have equalised. |
I would agree with that. At 2-1 down we had a 5 minute spell where we laid seige to their goal. We had 3 corners, Gomis had a goalbound shot rather luckily deflected over the bar plus we had at least 2 other shots in the same spell and their defence were scrambling around trying to get the ball away. It was one of those spells where you feel a goal is definitely coming and if we'd carried on in that vein, who knows. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
