71% possession to Stokes 29%
24 attempts on goal to Stokes 8
18 of ours were on target as opposed to Stokes 2
13 corners to Stokes 1
I know these stats don't tell the whole story, and I hate it when people get statistics and try to beat you to death with them, but they are not indicative of a side who came to WHL to play free flowing football and make a game of it
Its a bit like wondering why Usain Bolt didn't run the 100 metres under 10 seconds, when he had to do it through Leicester square on a summers day
Everton was similar, despite a ridiculous amount of possession we actually didnt REALLY threaten the goal until Saha hitting the post in the 90 something minute iirc...
Damn lies and statistics...
To think that some people were calling for the whole first team coaching staff to be sacked a couple of weeks ago.
I havent done that at all. And I know sometimes you get a result you donte 'deserve' (Fuilham jumps to mind) and dont get one you do.
What Im saying is that having 60% possession and 20 shots on goal doesnt necessarily mean you played well.
Take our wins against Arsenal over the last few years. We had a very clear tactic of letting them have the ball, sitting back, pushing them wide where they arent (werent?) dangerous then hitting them on the break.
They ended up resorting to pot shots from range. They end the game with the lions share of possession and a more shots as well. Did they play well and lose? Or were they out thought? Did we play well and win, despite statistically not wining a single margin?
Everton was a very similar game for me, with us on the receiving end.
Im not trying to bash anyone/anything, stop jumping to conclusions. Im making an observation, that is all.
We didnt play badly, I didnt say we did. There is middle ground you know!
It comes down to perception doesnt it? Did we pin Everton back, or did they invite us?
I thought they were very well prepared for us. Played for a draw, and were lucky to get the win. However, in the second half, in our much vaunted dominance, I never had the impression we would score. It just wasnt on - Everton dealt with anything we had, and comfortably so IMO.
Only at the very end, when its last ditch stuff, did we break through only to be denied by the post.
Clearly you saw the game differently to me, but thats the version of events I have in mind.
Everton are a bloody good side, there is no shame in losing up there, Im not bashing anyone.
But it usually means it wasn't a poor performance either.
We deserved to beat Everton though, we outplayed them and were the away team. Had the quality of our crossing been better we'd have won that one comfortably. It's a bad example to try and bash Redknapp/the team with.
Everton was similar, despite a ridiculous amount of possession we actually didnt REALLY threaten the goal until Saha hitting the post in the 90 something minute iirc...
Damn lies and statistics...
Arsenal's form is worse than ours. They are away last game of the season, we're at home with 30,000+ Spurs fans. I know who I'd rather be in that case.
Arsenal's form is worse than ours. They are away last game of the season, we're at home with 30,000+ Spurs fans. I know who I'd rather be in that case.
Arsenal's form is worse than ours. They are away last game of the season, we're at home with 30,000+ Spurs fans. I know who I'd rather be in that case.
West Brom have a manager who is on his way out. When has that ever worked in any clubs favour?
This Win it for Woy stuff is pure fanasy.
agreed
the stats aren't really the crux of my position, its what they show thats important - that of a club who did not come to make a game of it, but simply defended in numbers and hoped for a lucky break.
At Everton we inflicted that on the HOME team. Look what happened to Bolton, when they actualy tried to make a game of it (because they had to)