For one, chances are not only attempted shots. They had 2 really good low crosses that weren't met that should have been completely avoided by us but were ideal chances to score for them, those weren't converted because they were bad. We did our part on letting it happen though. I don't know which game you were watching though since you are talking about "domination". Think back at our encounters with Chelsea 2-3 seasons ago for example. Looking at the possession stats and shots on goal (and not the scoreline) you'd think we were completely dominating them and looked like the more dangerous team, but if you actually watched the games it was a completely different story. Passing the ball in a half-circle around their 16 yard box with the occasional desperate shot on goal is not "domination".
Mainly the latter, I'm afraid. They were absolutely awful and it was very, very easy. The 4-0 win at Villa Park was much the same.
BTW, BBC use a non-standard way of tracking possession. They always differ by large amounts to every other source out there.
The Blackburn game looks even worse on Sky's take: http://www1.skysports.com/football/live/match/257266/stats Possession of 70.6% to 29.4% and the same total lack of shots.
Yes BBC usually makes it look more "even" than it is for the dominated team (time wasting is counted maybe?). I know that many of our 60-40 games this season are shown closer to 50-50 on BBC.
Sorry but that was a lot of rubbish. Forget possession, if a team only gets 5 shots at your goal, then your defence hasn't played rubbish. And those "Good low crosses", when they happen the other end, are used by our fans to demonstrate why Walcott is a crap winger who is barely non-league standard. Those crosses were completely useless and if they had gone anwhere else they would have been cut out by the defender or taken by the keeper. But even if I conceed that they had 2 good low crosses, can you name a game EVER when a team held another to 3 shots on target and 2 good low crosses? Do you expect either West ham or Spurs to do it now or are both their defences worse than awful? Shall we see how it turns out?
Sorry but that was a lot of rubbish. Forget possession, if a team only gets 5 shots at your goal, then your defence hasn't played rubbish. And those "Good low crosses", when they happen the other end, are used by our fans to demonstrate why Walcott is a crap winger who is barely non-league standard. Those crosses were completely useless and if they had gone anwhere else they would have been cut out by the defender or taken by the keeper. But even if I concede that they had 2 good low crosses, can you name a game EVER when a team held another to 3 shots on target and 2 good low crosses? Do you expect either West ham or Spurs to do it now, or are both their defences worse than awful? Let's see how it turns out!
Thanks for clearing that up. It does sound a bit like what Steve Kean would do. The game today between West Ham and Spurs will give me a better understanding of where Spurs are with AVB in charge. They out-played Lyon and look high on confidence. The big question is can they take that over to West Ham, perform and get a result. In the past they've blown too hot and cold but If they can turn over West Ham, then it will show me in part, that they are starting to look like turning the page.
Well, one thing we can ALL agree on is that their defence is 50x worse than ours! Look how many chances they gave a team that was thrashed by Aston Villa! Terrible schoolboy defending. Chance after chance after chance. Shocking, awful terrible. And the West Ham defence. even worse! How good does our defense look now?
