• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

*** OMT Tottenham Hotspur v Ipswich Town FC ***

Baleforce said:
They had 16 attempts on goal.

One of which was 30 seconds in and identical to the one we gifted Villa the other week.

Giving up so many easy chances a game is diabolical defending imo.
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on how you view it. I'd have to look over every one of those 16 chances and see which ones actually meant something. The only two which annoyed me were the first 30 seconds and the goal itself. I'd also wager that half the other opportunities they got came as. result of a brick ref who did not give us free-kicks we should've got.

Honestly, if you can call the defending 'diabolical' after a 4-1 win away from home, I think it's clear you simply don't like the way we currently play, and further, won't give any concession for progress/acknowledge that when we are able to rotate and rest players, we're actually not a bad football side at all. Bear in mind were still missing Romero, VdV and Solanke.
 
thfcsteff said:
I suppose it depends on how you view it. I'd have to look over every one of those 16 chances and see which ones actually meant something. The only two which annoyed me were the first 30 seconds and the goal itself. I'd also wager that half the other opportunities they got came as. result of a brick ref who did not give us free-kicks we should've got.

Honestly, if you can call the defending 'diabolical' after a 4-1 win away from home, I think it's clear you simply don't like the way we currently play, and further, won't give any concession for progress/acknowledge that when we are able to rotate and rest players, we're actually not a bad football side at all. Bear in mind were still missing Romero, VdV and Solanke.
Click to expand...
mmmm I wonder who would Romero and Solanke replace...
 
thfcsteff said:
I suppose it depends on how you view it. I'd have to look over every one of those 16 chances and see which ones actually meant something. The only two which annoyed me were the first 30 seconds and the goal itself. I'd also wager that half the other opportunities they got came as. result of a brick ref who did not give us free-kicks we should've got.

Honestly, if you can call the defending 'diabolical' after a 4-1 win away from home, I think it's clear you simply don't like the way we currently play, and further, won't give any concession for progress/acknowledge that when we are able to rotate and rest players, we're actually not a bad football side at all. Bear in mind were still missing Romero, VdV and Solanke.
Click to expand...

I hate the way we currently play.

It’s tactical, and whoever is actually on the pitch, we’ll still do the same stupid things that give the opposition so much time and space to attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back