PAULCFC Posted 28 August 2014 Posted 28 August 2014 Pearson said he chose a side he thought was capable of winning and if we'd played on paper - or even with our best team to start with - I might have agreed. But there was nothing "teamy" about it. We looked like so many car parts searching for an engine and an ignition key. Knockaert could have positioned himself in Nottingham and still had closer links with his team-mates than he had at The King Power. As for our "final passes" it seemed that most anything played to Knockaert was our final pass anyway and so many others were wasted with equal anti-climax. Part of the reason for all this was the impressive organisation - including tactical adjustments - of the Shrewsbury side and their dominance in so many key positions. They won the aerial battle both in defence and attack, had an irritating but effective organiser in central midfield, got people forward fast when the chance arose and, even acknowledging a couple of decent chances of ours, including Nugent's hitting the post, they had considerably more and left us a distant second in a two-horse race. But,you must surely agree that wasn't our "weakest team in at least a decade" as LCFCgrewks posted on the shrews forum.That was what i was taking issue with.On paper we should have won easily,but football isn't played on paper!Just thought it sound'd a bit disingenuous.
ozleicester Posted 1 September 2014 Posted 1 September 2014 Talk about being in denial... the match video on foxes player says it was 0-0 still unbeaten at home then
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.