Last 6 games... (4 Viewers)

[Juggernaut]

The Southend game was dominated by Coventry other than a 10 minute spell of poor defending.

They were mighty relieved with a point against us.

Nope, not how I saw it. Southend had the better of the first half whilst we had the better of the second with neither side really creating anything clear cut. An average performance which under SP would have been hammered.

 

---

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Nope, not how I saw it. Southend had the better of the first half whilst we had the better of the second with neither side really creating anything clear cut. An average performance which under SP would have been hammered.

First half was poor from both teams, lapses in concentration allowed Southend to score. Second half we dominated and there keeper kept them in it with several outstanding saves and was their motm.

 

[Juggernaut]

First half was poor from both teams, lapses in concentration allowed Southend to score. Second half we dominated and there keeper kept them in it with several outstanding saves and was their motm.

Dominated territory and possession maybe, but the saves we forced their keeper into were shots from range rather than opening Southend up and creating clear cut chances. It was an average performance and a draw was fair... Against a side who just came up and were without a win at the time.

 

[Otis]

Sorry, but your argument falls completely flat when you consider that we have also had the opportunity to 'suss' the other teams out. So assuming we are doing that as diligently as our opponents, the relative advantages should cancel each other out and not be a consideration.

I don't think my argument falls flat at all. We were the team who had won 3 in a row and looked unstoppable. At that point it time surely we would be really confident and it would have been a case that we believed we could have just carrying doing what we had been doing. It was down to other teams to try and stop us, rather than we stop them.

Those first 3 matches we didn't set out to stop other teams, we just played a style of fast, free flowing, skillful football and opposition teams couldn't cope.

Armstrong was running riot. Suddenly, after 3 games opposition teams set out to nullify him and that they did successfully.

 

[Gazolba]

I don't think my argument falls flat at all.

Armstrong was running riot. Suddenly, after 3 games opposition teams set out to nullify him and that they did successfully.

What you are really saying then is that TM is being outmanaged. Because your argument is that our opponents have successfully studied us but we have not successfully studied them.

 

[Otis]

What you are really saying then is that TM is being outmanaged. Because your argument is that our opponents have successfully studied us but we have not successfully studied them.

Nope, not saying that at all.

I am saying when we won 3 games in a row we looked almost unstoppable and I'm pretty sure a lot of TM's team talk would have been 'keep on doing what you are doing.'

Not a case of being out-managed.

There is no doubt opposition teams set out to nullify Adam Armstrong and cut off his opportunities and it clearly worked.

Of course we will have studied other teams, but when you are flying and winning 3 in a row, you believe to a degree that you can keep doing what you are doing and it is down to the opposition to try and nullify YOUR threat.

We were not the same team after those first 3 games and we have had to change our style of play slightly since the defeats as a result.

Would say TM is very much 'managing' and making adjustments.

When we won 3 in a row though and looked scintillating, why then would you want to even consider changing that winning team? We lost Maddison, but otherwise TM would have surely kept the same side for that 4th game.

You win 3 in a row you are much less likely to tinker and change things.