The tangle leading up to it is irrelevant. Whether you look at it in real time, or slow motion, the salient fact is that Buendia deliberately brought his elbow down on the back of the guy's neck. No excuse whatsoever IMO -- nor in DF's. Drmic I do have a certain amount of sympathy for. He has been subjected to all sorts of hateful abuse over his performances, culminating in the Instagram post which has been referred to the police. DF put him in the spotlight again yesterday by selecting him, and the tackle had all the hallmarks of a player reacting to questioning of not just his ability, but his attitude as well.
Nothing to do with bad luck. As Rick points out, he didn't need to touch the ball. Did Krul shout "leave it"? If not, why not?
It was only shambolic because of the stupidity of Buendia, however he may have been provoked, and the rashness of Drmic. The other players performed heroics to keep Burnley at bay with just 9 men. I have been questioning the team's character earlier on, but it was fully demonstrated yesterday and at Chelsea.
What was also demonstrated yesterday, Rick, was the falsity of DF's frequently repeated claim that the team has been built to play a particular way and can play no other way. We've both argued for a shift to a counter-attacking approach, as against DF's insistence on trying to dominate through possession. Neither of us is advocating "parking the bus" (did Arsenal "park the bus" against Man City yesterday?), but contrary to DF's comments, if forced to park the bus, we do have the players to make a decent fist of it even when reduced to 9 men.
True, Robbie, and the highlight of the match was Hernandez's breakaway to almost score. The trouble is, he's our only attacking player with pace. Hopefully SW is working on that now.
Krul made some excellent saves 4 or 5 if memory serves me , and Burnley had countless shots and headers that went wide. They had 23 shots 8 on target , it was poor finishing not good defending that kept it to 2-0 imho
So Godfrey's header, Tettey's fierce on-target shot and Hernandez's break-away strike didn't produce goals because they were examples of poor finishing? Good defending makes finishing more difficult, as we have found to our cost match after match. Have a look at the stats when we defeated Man City DD. I don't think anybody could accuse Man City of "poor finishing".
According to BBC our shots on target stats On target Off target Saints 1 9 22 9 Everton 1 5 12 9 Arsenal 2 8 13 8 Brighton 1 2 12 8 Watford 3 4 9 12 West Ham 2 7 19 11 Chelsea 2 6 22 3 Burnley 2 8 23 6 14 shots on target in 9 games 1 goal
My point was that Man City are the most clinical team in the league when it comes to scoring goals. You cannot accuse them of being poor finishers. They scored 2 against us, which is wholly in keeping with their average of 2.5 goals per game; their total of 25 shots in the match was not exceptional for Man City (they average 19 per game), and their total of 8 on target was in line with what they average every game (6.8). In other words, they didn't perform poorly in front of goal at all, they performed to their usual standard as the most clinical finishers in the league. We won because, on the day, we were exceptionally clinical in front of goal and defended exceptionally well.
I was there , we had 3 shots on target and scored 3 goals . That would be described by Pep as an off day down to our incredible luck/clinical finishing and them wasting chances. I don't know if you watched the Burnley game but they had 23 shots and missed the target on many occasions. If they are winning clean headers and putting it wide that is not good defending. In the last 9 games we have been absolute dog **** in every department. Over the season won 5 drawn 6 scored 26 conceded 70 -44. Says it all when we are the lowest scorers on 26 11 less than 19th place and by far the worst defence conceding 70 goals and our goalkeeper is player of the season . There is no argument
I would have to disagree. We only looked strong in that regard with Zimmermann putting in some excellent blocks and he has been missing for most of the season. Plus he nearly cocked up at one point (but rescued himself superbly). So we really have not got the personnel for that.
We did it against Man City with Amadou at CB; Everton (a) was another example. Compare the heat maps for those two matches with Saturday's against Burnley. When a counter-attacking approach is forced on DF, we can do it rather well.
Not consistently though. That was Amadou’s best game - he made some monumental errors in other matches. So yes, of course if every player plays well then we can probably play any style or formation we like. But that’s not realistic, is it. If we’d had Zimmerman fit all season I’m confident we would have been able to play like that more often. But we didn’t.
Whether we've played like that has simply been down to whether or not DF's hand has been forced by circumstance. Who he had available to him had no bearing on it. Zimmermann's being fit would not have changed DF's mindset for a moment. He has always insisted that how we played in the Championship is how we "have to" play. Until the season was suspended that is. Then, lo and behold, at the restart, a new approach, with Drmic starting, longer passing out of defence, and one abysmal result after another. If there's any approach that our players are clearly unsuited for, it's what we've been watching since the restart. The only consistency has been in the message we've had from results, that DF's preferred strategies have both failed. The only strategy that has looked workable is to defend deep and counter-attack. We are actually quite good at that, but DF has quite simply refused to adopt it.
That makes no sense. Of course the personnel you have on the pitch has a bearing on whether you can play in a certain way. Eleven of me on the pitch and I guarantee you will not be able to get Canary Rob XI to play tiki-taka. No matter how hard you train me.
If the eleven Canary Robs showed as much determination on the pitch as you do to take issue with me on here Rob, Barcelona wouldn't stand a chance .
