Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ricardo

Ricardo's report v Chelsea

Recommended Posts

One of the advantages of being a glass half empty person is that because you never expect too much so you are much less disappointed when things don''t go well. Anyway, that''s the theory and so it was that when after 3 minutes a high ball caught the City defence out and Ba''s back heel to Oscar ended with the ball in the City net, I was thinking it was all much as I had expected. City looked very second best for the opening quarter and with a low awkward sun in their faces the back line was at full stretch to control the lively Chelsea forwards. It didn''t help that Ba''s continual jumping into Ruddy went unpenalised but the City stopper was certainly the busier of the two keepers.It was fully 15 minutes before City finally gained any sort of quality possession and although they pressed Chelsea back they were unable to pierce the back line. On 21 minutes however City might have been level when good play between Snoddy and RVW ended with the latter''s hard low cross being narrowly bundled wide by a Chelsea defender. With Fer and Howson becoming more and more influential it was Chelsea who were now on the back foot and the pressure would have been even more concerted had Ref and Linesman twice incorrectly awarded goal kicks for what were obvious corners. RVW  was having a lively game and his header almost dropped for Johnny Howson but he was unable to make meaningful contact. Then Tetty and Snoddy both had efforts over the top and just before the interval Ref and Linesman finally made a correct call and City won a corner. Turners header found Bassong but his effort lacked the power to trouble Cech.So after that nervous start I think we all felt mildly encouraged by City''s response but Chelsea really ought to have gone two up just after the break. A quick move down the left ended with Ba just failing to get enough contact on the cross and the ball flashed wide of the far post. Neil Swarbrick wasn''t having the best of days as some niggly fouls began to break up play and when that giant of a man David Luiz was continually felled by the slightest contact with a yellow shirt the crowd responded with a few choruses of "you don''t know what you''re doing".The next goal was going to be important and it still looked more likely that it would go to City. RVW almost bustled one in after a great move involving Howson and Snoddy. At the other end there was little to trouble Ruddy and City were now looking very dangerous as Tetty banged a 20 yarder just over then suddenly Olsson broke down the the left and RVW neatly headed back across goal for Pilks to apply the finishing touch and net under Cech''s dive. It was no more than City deserved.After so much effort City visibly tired and it was no surprise when Hooper and Redmond replaced the hard running RVW and Snoddy. End to end action resumed with Ivanovic testing Ruddy and then Redmond brought a fine stop out of Cech with no City player able to apply the finishing touch as the ball rolled free in the area. So we entered the last five minutes with both teams going at it hammer and tongs. A draw was looking the likely result but then a hopeful punt upfield should have been comfortably dealt with by Tetty only for the midfielder to blot an otherwise unblemished copybook with a weak back pass. Hazard was on it in a flash and although Ruddy parried his shot there was enough momentum on the ball to carry it over the line.You could see the City heads drop after that and a minute later Willians sublime 25 yarder only rubbed salt into an already open wound. To lose 3-1 in a game like that has to be gutting in the extreme. Against the top sides you need a bit of luck or at the very least an even hand from Dame Fortune. Sadly, it wasn''t to be and to have your glass filled and then emptied again in such a cruel way is a bit too much even for a glass half empty man like me.[:(]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spot on report as ever, Ricardo.I suspect Chelsea may be Champions come the end of this season as the quality of their squad seems strongest of all. Just a shame we didn''t have that little bit of luck we need to beat the likes of Chelsea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
A decent summary there.The lapses in concentration that led to the goals were the frustrating thing for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Pyro Pete"]A decent summary there.

The lapses in concentration that led to the goals were the frustrating thing for me.
[/quote]

 

 Spot on mate, that''s the difference between teams like us and Chelsea, we make an error they punish us, they make an error we might get a half chance but more likely it''s smothered by one of their other quality players!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks again Ricardo.

What did you think of Hooper when he came on? I was greatly encouraged when he completely outmuscled Luis (I think), which is something I couldn''t imagine RVW doing. He also took a lot of pressure off the defence just after, holding off about 3 Chelsea players with nobody around to pass to. However he seemed to disappear after that.

I was very worried about his quality when we signed him, but after Watford & the signs today I''m feeling more optimistic; your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ron obvious"]Many thanks again Ricardo. What did you think of Hooper when he came on? I was greatly encouraged when he completely outmuscled Luis (I think), which is something I couldn''t imagine RVW doing. He also took a lot of pressure off the defence just after, holding off about 3 Chelsea players with nobody around to pass to. However he seemed to disappear after that. I was very worried about his quality when we signed him, but after Watford & the signs today I''m feeling more optimistic; your thoughts?[/quote]

 

I agree with your observations, Ron. I would only add that my sense of Hooper is that he is more of a goal poacher who I think will be key in matches where we expect to enjoy a certain amount of pressure in the opponents box.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ron obvious"]Many thanks again Ricardo.

What did you think of Hooper when he came on? I was greatly encouraged when he completely outmuscled Luis (I think), which is something I couldn''t imagine RVW doing. He also took a lot of pressure off the defence just after, holding off about 3 Chelsea players with nobody around to pass to. However he seemed to disappear after that.

I was very worried about his quality when we signed him, but after Watford & the signs today I''m feeling more optimistic; your thoughts?[/quote]Unfortunately he come on after our best patch. I think Pilks was tiring badly and I was a bit surprised when it was Snoddy that made way for Redmond. I think we got a little bit over adventurous towards the end. OK we might have got a win but in the end it was a certain point chucked away. All in all I thought we showed enough to be confident that we will get enough points to survive again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for a good report as usual Ricardo. Lots of very good performances today against a classy Chelsea side who had really top level options on the bench to bring on plus a very clever Manager who switched tactics brilliantly to go for the win.

I said out loud when we were clearly going for it at 1-1 that it was a very dangerous thing to do against Chelsea and that they would catch us on the break, and that is just what happened unfortunately, plus what a goal from a player making his first appearance, just a UKP30 million signing to bring on!  

I think Ruddy will certainly have better days, I wonder if he felt under additional pressure, what with the Hart situation plus playing against the team who had put a bid in for him during the summer.

Certainly thought RVW had his best game to date for us, a really good assist, worked hard, made himself available and had he scored it would have seemed right and perhaps taken some of his critics of his back, he does seem to be gradually getting up to speed. 

Real shame we have ened up in the bottom three tonight, but I remain confident that we will end up several positions higher come the end of the season, providing everyone keeps the faith.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
--- ricardo: OK we might have got a win but in the end it was a certain point chucked away.

A CERTAIN point against Chelsea, who brought on 50 million of substitutes... my word you talk some tripe sometimes. Nothing was certain at 1-1, and Chelsea had become a greater attacking threat from the moment we equalised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The frustrating thing was their second goal which killed the game.  That awful corner, the hoofed clearance, the Tettey error, the Ruddy error (though Ruddy was the least culpable of the three in my view).  A half-decent corner headed over the bar, we regroup for the goal kick and probably draw the game 1-1.  That goal took all the wind from our sails.Good report Ricky, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]--- ricardo: OK we might have got a win but in the end it was a certain point chucked away.

A CERTAIN point against Chelsea, who brought on 50 million of substitutes... my word you talk some tripe sometimes. Nothing was certain at 1-1, and Chelsea had become a greater attacking threat from the moment we equalised.[/quote]You would expect a team with £50 million subs to hold a greater attacking threat at any time. However we fully deserved our equaliser and it was even Steven for a while.Then we chucked everyone forward, played a stupid corner into no mans land leaving Olsson and Pilks too far up field on the left and when the ball  was cleared we got caught out at the back. Quite unnecessary IMO but then again it''s only my opinion and nobody is stopping you having your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
--- ricardo: Then we chucked everyone forward, played a stupid corner into no mans land leaving Olsson and Pilks too far up field on the left and when the ball  was cleared we got caught out at the back. Quite unnecessary IMO

In games against the top sides you have to take the opportunity you get from corners seriously.

As you say, the corner was woeful. But really it should have been dealt with fine by Tettey. You can''t legislate for an error like that. You certainly can''t base your game around it. To add insult to injury, Ruddy should have made the save anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the report and comments, Ricardo.

I was only able to listen to the game on Radio Norfolk and My impression was we made the game hard for ourselves by giving away a cheap early goal but that we were fully in the game after that and second half really took the game to Chelsea. We had the momentum and capitalised through a player who never feels intimidated by the top sides.

It was also obvious that Mourinho was under far more pressure to win this game than Hughton and he gambled accordingly. But, City responded and due to positive subs by Hughton continued to carry a genuine threat. But then came the turning point and as soon as the corner was won I felt concerned.

Many, many years ago when we played Bayern and Inter I remember it said that when you were attacking it didn''t matter whether you blazed over the bar so long as you didn''t lose the ball in that position. It has ever been thus against top players.

Norwich themselves were set up to hit Chelsea on the break and it seemed they were doing just that but they won a corner and fatefully pushed up.

But what I really want to know from anyone who saw the game is this. On the radio commentary Goreham said

Whittaker was due to come on as a sub for Pilkington who was run out. In any event this was a good tactical sub late in he game but Pilkington was taking the corner and that was the reason the sub didn''t happen. Is this true? If so, why not go ahead with the sub, especially as Pilks had a distance to jog? Why not use the break to get players back?

It is good to go for it but it seems dangerous to risk a breakaway. It didn''t need a corner swung in, it needed a short corner. Here were the chances to close out the game, but Goreham might have hot it wrong.

Can anyone who was at the game or saw it on TV comment on this?

A bitter pill. But I don''t buy all this Chelsea are great so we should expect it. It seems to me we were ultimately architects of our own downfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]Thanks for the report and comments, Ricardo.

I was only able to listen to the game on Radio Norfolk and My impression was we made the game hard for ourselves by giving away a cheap early goal but that we were fully in the game after that and second half really took the game to Chelsea. We had the momentum and capitalised through a player who never feels intimidated by the top sides.

It was also obvious that Mourinho was under far more pressure to win this game than Hughton and he gambled accordingly. But, City responded and due to positive subs by Hughton continued to carry a genuine threat. But then came the turning point and as soon as the corner was won I felt concerned.

Many, many years ago when we played Bayern and Inter I remember it said that when you were attacking it didn''t matter whether you blazed over the bar so long as you didn''t lose the ball in that position. It has ever been thus against top players.

Norwich themselves were set up to hit Chelsea on the break and it seemed they were doing just that but they won a corner and fatefully pushed up.

But what I really want to know from anyone who saw the game is this. On the radio commentary Goreham said

Whittaker was due to come on as a sub for Pilkington who was run out. In any event this was a good tactical sub late in he game but Pilkington was taking the corner and that was the reason the sub didn''t happen. Is this true? If so, why not go ahead with the sub, especially as Pilks had a distance to jog? Why not use the break to get players back?

It is good to go for it but it seems dangerous to risk a breakaway. It didn''t need a corner swung in, it needed a short corner. Here were the chances to close out the game, but Goreham might have hot it wrong.

Can anyone who was at the game or saw it on TV comment on this?

A bitter pill. But I don''t buy all this Chelsea are great so we should expect it. It seems to me we were ultimately architects of our own downfall.[/quote]Yes, dead right, statistics show that the first goal is ultra important in this league. That''s why to play so well to get back to all square and then chuck it away through a mistake is so hard to take.As I said in the report, I thought Pilks was well shot at the time of the Redmond substitution. I didn''t notice Whits being made ready but that should have been the move on about 80 minutes but it''s easy to second guess and we can all be experts with hindsight.To a certain extent I would agree that we were indeed architects of our own downfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was not that much danger. Tettey looked like he had it covered and somehow miss hit the ball .... and Ruddy let it slip under him.The goal was more a consequence of those errors than any breakaway.Last season against Everton we also went for it .. and won. It has to be the game plan, especially with 25 mins to go and the way we were attacking. Maybe the radio didn''t convey how much we had them on the rack.To not continue to push for a goal at that stage would have been farcical ... and would have called into question the manager and clubs intentions. Try and hold on to what we have got with a few minutes left, or when clearly we are not looking likely to score the fine, but with the ''wind behind us'' as it was there was little other choiceWe were unlucky, that''s allContinue with these changed tactics and the ''luck'' will also change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]--- ricardo: OK we might have got a win but in the end it was a certain point chucked away.

A CERTAIN point against Chelsea, who brought on 50 million of substitutes... my word you talk some tripe sometimes. Nothing was certain at 1-1, and Chelsea had become a greater attacking threat from the moment we equalised.[/quote]You would expect a team with £50 million subs to hold a greater attacking threat at any time. However we fully deserved our equaliser and it was even Steven for a while.Then we chucked everyone forward, played a stupid corner into no mans land leaving Olsson and Pilks too far up field on the left and when the ball  was cleared we got caught out at the back. Quite unnecessary IMO but then again it''s only my opinion and nobody is stopping you having your own.[/quote]I know that hindsight is a great thing, but I agree that this time maybe we pressed too hard for the three points. Holt would have kept the ball at the corner flag for the last ten minutes! But then, not "going for it" is exactly what CH has often been criticised for. All in all, the manner of today''s defeat against Chelsea resembled to that two seasons ago at Stamford Bridge -- under Lambert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
---- Budapest Canary: But then, not "going for it" is exactly what CH has often been criticised for.

I don''t think anyone thinks we should be gung-ho, the criticism of Hughton relates to our attitude in games against lesser sides than Chelsea.

All in all, we were all over Chelsea like a rash, and gave away a goal through an individual mistake. There is no saying that had we sat and defended for the last 20 minutes Chelsea would not have found a way through, our success in the 2nd half came from successfully pushing them back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At 1-1 Chelsea were probably under more pressure than us to get a win. By hitting us when we had too many too far up, they hit us in exactly the way we should have been trying to hit them. We ended up taking an uncalculated risk which probably cost us at least a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good report from the OP, but here''s a few thoughts from me to add to the pot.

 

1. We looked much better when pressing them close and tight. Early on we gave them too much room and they played too many neat one-twos and triangles around the box, Schurrle, Cole, Mata in particualr had a field day at times down our right. We need to press better, we showed against Stoke and for a large part of the second half that we are much more secure when we do that and can actually win the ball back!

 

2. Midfield passing and movment is still too flat for me. Howson was generally pretty good but both he and Tettey in particular were guilty of dawdling when getting the ball in space. Too often they stop and look for someone to pass to rather than surging forward into a space. This makes it very hard for others to get into good positions to receive, is easy to defend against as the pattern of play becomes static, and it breaks up momentum allowing defenders to get back. I''d like to see Howson passing earlier sometimes, Pilks made some great runs but too often was not picked out until too late. The penalty incident was a great example, had the ball gone early and diagonally left to Pilkington (there was a clear moment when this was possible) he would have got it under control and got a shot away, instead it came too late and short and had he not fallen would have had to shot back across the path of his momentum, not ideal.

 

3. I am not convinced that fitness levels are as high as under the previous manager. We do seem to find it difficult to maintain energy levels and track back or cover enough for 90 minutes. Is this why our attacks sometimes seem so ponderous? May have been a factor in their second goal, but Chelsea looked a bit sharper throughout for me.

 

4. Playing two wingers who stay out wide means we are sometimes too spread out with fewer options for passing. It was noticeable how Chelsea generally played a more compact game. Snods too often hugs the touchline and if Pilks does the same we have few options to support RvW in the middle. The wingers need to play more often as outside centres at times, coming inside much more to support attacks. They can drift out wide to defend or when there is space on a break but not at the same time. Snodgrass has too little pace at the moment to cause much trouble out wide, he was better yesterday when he got more central and that gave the team much more balance. Chelsea played more shorts passes in packs, some nice little tip and runs around the box. We don''t have the same quality, but we don''t help ourselves by spreading so thin: harder to get passes away and more chance of an interception.

 

None of the above are particularly new issues though for me. Against Stoke and yesterday we were much much better but I can only assume that the coaches are interpreting things in a different way from me since it is frustrating that some of these things are not addressed yet we see the evidence week in week out in the games which go well and those which do not.

 

We were indeed unlucky yesterday but let us not kid ourselves that Chelsea could not have been 3-0 up before our goal. That we gave them such a good battle in the second half was to our credit, but what we were doing right then we need to do for 90 minutes, not just 30. But we should take confidence from it, we may get battered at Arsenal but playing like that we should get enough points to move away from trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always thanks to the OP for his report which pretty much confirmed how it looked on Sky.

 

The opening goal was obviously a major disappointment and worried me because it was similar to the first goal we conceded against Spurs.  In both cases we were sitting deep which meant a single ball was controlled by the striker a few yards inside the box, and a simple layoff back gave the supporting attacker a clear strike on goal from inside the box, which is always a great chance to score.

 

Fortunately we pulled up our socks and started pressing them much higher up the pitch.  Chelsea had chances to put the game out of sight by half-time but it''s about taking those chances, by the same token we had a brilliant chance which somehow Cech seemed to save with his foot (Sky only seemed to have one replay angle for it which is unusual).  There was one point where Sky pulled up the stat for last 10 minutes possession as 66% Norwich which showed how well we were doing.  The equalizer was no more than we deserved when it finally came.

 

At about 80 minutes I thought Chelsea were looking more tired than us to be honest, certainly I think Terry and Lampard were looking bushed and would have happily settled for a point.  We did over-commit players forward to the corner which led to their goal and this is where I differ from the "we want to be entertained" brigade who want that sort of approach - personally I''d have preferred us to keep another player a bit deeper to defend against the counter-attack.  Obviously it did take the mistake by Tettey to give them the goal nonetheless, but that''s what you''re at risk of when you over-commit forwards.  Gutting at the end because we so deserved a point but there you are.

 

So an encouraging performance and one that does leave us better placed than we were this time last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m not sure about this over-committing at a corner stuff. It was a rubbish corner, a hoof upfield, a mistake by Tettey and a Ruddy was unfortunate that the ball went underneath him. I''m not sure that having any extra men back would have made any difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Tumbleweed"]I''m not sure about this over-committing at a corner stuff. It was a rubbish corner, a hoof upfield, a mistake by Tettey and a Ruddy was unfortunate that the ball went underneath him. I''m not sure that having any extra men back would have made any difference.[/quote]When your last man is a midfielder and not a defender it is silly to argue that they didn''t over commit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it is normal practice to send up both central defenders, the fact that we had our defensive midfielder covering rather than a full back, could suggest that it is silly to argue that it made any difference. The ability to kick a ball properly is not confined to four players only. He made a mistake (arguably one of three which contributed), it happens and it was a shame but we move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" Obviously it did take the mistake by Tettey to give them the goal

nonetheless, but that''s what you''re at risk of when you over-commit

forwards."
absolute nonsense, as this post by Tumbleweed explains''Im not sure about this over-committing at a corner stuff. It was a

rubbish corner, a hoof upfield, a mistake by Tettey and a Ruddy was

unfortunate that the ball went underneath him. I''m not sure that having

any extra men back would have made any difference.

As to Ricardos guff
When your last man is a midfielder and not a defender it is silly to argue that they didn''t over commit.that merely takes this idiocy a step furtherTettey made a complete botch up of playing the ball. that was an error on his part, not because he was not a defender. Even then it took Ruddy to let the ball go under his body to concede the goal. Was that mistake because he was not a ''defender'' keeper.Previously Olsson made an even greater ballsup of playing the ball. Has anyone commented on what he was doing in the box and not leaving stuff like that to forwards. Has anyone even mentioned that anywhere or what the result would have been had he scored.

The simple fact is players at tis level should be perfectly capable  of dealing with a ball at their feet, irrespective of where they play - likewise a keeper should keep hold of a ball hit straight at them.It was player error, that''s all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ricardo,

 

are you saying if the last man had been a defender then they would not have scored?  Hindsight is a wonderful thing.  Maybe we could have kept a couple more back and still attacked? Who knows what would have happened, all I do know is that we really gave ourselves a chance a winning that game and that we were unlucky not to get a result.

 

99 times out of 100 Tettey would have successfully cleared that ball away and we would be discussing a draw or a win right now.

 

The fact is he made an honest mistake, as many do including the best in the world, and Chelsea scored. It was a real shame because I though he was excellent all afternoon!

 

We could have had 3 players back defending, but the mistake went straight into Hazards path.  No extra defenders would have stopped it IMO.

 

The subs were correct, the tactics were spot on, and the performance was first class! 

 

We lost because of mistakes and a bit of class.  The mistakes could have happened at any time and on another occassion we would have got away with it. We didn''t and we got punished.  We go up against an Arsenal next week that is strong going forward, but also shakey at the back.  West Brom showed how you can play against the big boys and get results.

 

If we show the same effort and endeavour at the Emirates we will get a result and to show that I believe it I will be having a cheeky bet on us!

 

Snake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]ICF, how does a defeat leave us better placed than we were this time last year?[:^)][/quote]

 

At the corresponding point last season we were winless with 3 points and our last 2 games were a 5-2 thrashing by Liverpool at home and a 4-1 defeat by Chelsea away where we took the lead but they soon took it back, and from about 30 minutes onwards Chelsea had the game won and could stroll around looking a class above us.  So we are better placed this season with 7 points, a win at home and away, and a 3-1 home defeat to Chelsea from a good performance which could, and probably should, have been a draw.

 

The other recent comments are hard work tbh - yes Tettey made a mistake when he could have prevented the goal, but most goals in football are like that - if a defender had done something better normally he could have stopped the goal,  Incredibly harsh to blame Ruddy for it as he was coming out to try to close down the angle and the forward is always favourite in that situation.

 

The point about it being a poor corner followed by a hoof upfield and then a mistake by Tettey doesn''t answer the fact that if we''d kept another player back, it would have been easier to close down the player the ball was hoofed to, and we''d probably have shut down the move well before it reached our area.  Obviously no one can say for sure as we didn''t keep that player back, but that''s the point of having an extra man in defence - it makes it easier to defend.  When you are over-stretched, it leaves you more vulnerable to mistakes, of which Sunday was a perfect example. It''s not exactly rocket science.

 

I don''t understand why people have a problem accepting this.  If you commit more to attack, it leaves you vulnerable to the counter-attack, corners are a big area where Prem teams like Chelsea are good on the break and you need to be aware of it.  A slightly more cautious approach to that corner with a few minutes to go would have (almost certainly) meant we kept at least a point, which could in the end be important.  Those who want us to play a more entertaining style should have the guts to accept it brings with it a higher risk of conceding goals like this.  If they think it''s worth it, they''re entitled to their opinion, what bugs me is when people won''t accept there is a downside to the approach they''re calling for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The point about it being a poor corner followed by a hoof upfield and

then a mistake by Tettey doesn''t answer the fact that if we''d kept

another player back, it would have been easier to close down the player

the ball was hoofed to, and we''d probably have shut down the move well

before it reached our area.  Obviously no one can say for sure as we

didn''t keep that player back, but that''s the point of having an extra

man in defence - it makes it easier to defend.  When you are

over-stretched, it leaves you more vulnerable to mistakes, of which

Sunday was a perfect example. It''s not exactly rocket science."nor is the old guff you have put upTettey made the mistake, not a bad tackle but a blatant miss hit of the ball where it was reasonable to expect someone of his ability to deal with itwe had enough cover, as his being first to the ball demonstrated, likewise withhis speed to get back rather than presuming the defenders would be theredo you really think stuff like this has not been worked out and dealt with, that Tettey did not know his role ?

now tell us what caused the third goal - perhaps you could also check how many players were back when he scored

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should have defended the counter attack better.   Its a standard scenario but unfortunately poor choices were made.

 

The only reason Tettey was the last man ( and he wasnt when the corner was taken but he covered back when their break was on) was olsson inexplicably got drawn to the wide man rather then heading back to the 18 yard line and covering two player.   He subsequently left a yawning gap for the ball to be played into. 

 

A poor defensive decision which was the first of three (tettey not controlling the ball once he did get back and then ruddys poor save the final one) for the goal and which blotted an otherwise decent attcking performance.

 

  A strong performance and hoepfully we can pick up  this tempo once we are back from the international break. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...