marbelladave Posted 5 January 2011 Posted 5 January 2011 That's the whole point! Sven made a tactical adjustment at half time. Swansea only had one decent attempt on goal in the second half (credit the whole team for shutting them down). It might not have been pretty, but it certainly wasn't poor. Shutting down Swansea for much of the second half lifted our performance from abject to poor, remember we still let Sinclair in for the equaliser but he fluffed it. The rest of our play was awfull, we created absolutely nothing going forward bar one Dyer chance and both our goals were hugely fortuitous, had we been that lucky all season from our hundreds of corners we would be top of the league wit a goal difference of +50... Had we had our usual return from our corners we would have lost and everyone would be in meltdown, two lucky goals does not turn a poor performance into a decent one even though it did get us the points. All in all I think the performance was about on a par with the Leeds game, rubbish first half, improved second half but overall nowhere near good enough.
okie fox Posted 5 January 2011 Posted 5 January 2011 Shutting down Swansea for much of the second half lifted our performance from abject to poor, remember we still let Sinclair in for the equaliser but he fluffed it. The rest of our play was awfull, we created absolutely nothing going forward bar one Dyer chance and both our goals were hugely fortuitous, had we been that lucky all season from our hundreds of corners we would be top of the league wit a goal difference of +50... Had we had our usual return from our corners we would have lost and everyone would be in meltdown, two lucky goals does not turn a poor performance into a decent one even though it did get us the points. All in all I think the performance was about on a par with the Leeds game, rubbish first half, improved second half but overall nowhere near good enough. How do you know we would have lost? Give us credit for 2 well-worked corners that Swansea failed to deal with. We deserved the 3 points because we were the better team in the second half. It was a decent performance because we totally nullified Swansea in the second half (apart from the fluffed lucky breakaway -- that evened out King's fluffed header). It wasn't beautiful, but it was effective!
Filbert's Friend Posted 5 January 2011 Posted 5 January 2011 I still cant believe we scored from a corner... twice!
marbelladave Posted 5 January 2011 Posted 5 January 2011 I still cant believe we scored from a corner... twice! Exactly, if we were actually any good at corners we would be much higher in the league with a good positive goal difference. Statistically two goals from corners in a little over half an hour is a fluke, no question!
Kitchandro Posted 5 January 2011 Posted 5 January 2011 Exactly, if we were actually any good at corners we would be much higher in the league with a good positive goal difference. Statistically two goals from corners in a little over half an hour is a fluke, no question! I think it's abit harsh to have a go at them for finally getting corners right!
marbelladave Posted 5 January 2011 Posted 5 January 2011 I think it's abit harsh to have a go at them for finally getting corners right! Not at all, I'm having a go at them for getting it wrong the last 200+ times!
Corky Posted 5 January 2011 Posted 5 January 2011 Yes, it wasn't the best performance, but Swansea are a decent side and we got a good result. We can play better than that so it bodes well for the future. Just hope we add to this in our next league game
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.