Bae

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
QPAAAAAGH said:
He was poor but he was not alone. All our back four were given a torrid time by Burnley. Onohua was clearly at fault for their second and yet I don't see the lynch mob out for him. And Hill and Dunne regularly lost their men which is very unusual.

Personally I'm hoping that it was a combination of Burnley's attacking prowess and tricky conditions that caused us to have an aberration at the back. It certainly would be ironic if our defence started to crumble just when we have discovered some notion of more direct and effective attacking play.
Click to expand...

As I've stated before, I haven't seen the game and can only go by what you people say and what is read in the papers.
In short, I can only assume on what has happen but to have 3 scored against the best defence in the league tends to indicate that maybe our defence wasn't up to the usual standard but hey! .................. we had a new strike force and we still scored 3 as well, so all in all, we got away with a point, for which I'm happy with.

We haven't score 3 goals in a game too often so I'm thankful for that. If a player wasn't up to their usual standard, it proves their human and hopefully they'll try to make up for it next time round.
Love our team, regardless!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back