For sixty minutes we played very well. We didn't have a lot of possession but we were in control. Yes Swansea had some chances but it wasn't that we scored the only ones we had or against the run of play was it. We deserved the 3 nil lead and scored 3 good goals. We should not lose sight of that 60 minutes
Yes Swansea had chances but I don't remember Wilson being particularly troubled by any of them. We coped well out of possession, regularly getting a foot in to break things up and creating our own chances, could have scored a couple before Panzo's header. At 3 nil Swansea had little to lose and changed things. We reacted 15 minutes later, it took too long. The gap between forwards and midfield got too wide, the midfield sat back just in front of the defence. That meant even fewer outlets to relieve the pressure. Defenders had little option but a hit and hope clearance to Gyokeres
Bringing Kelly on didn't change that, indeed he didn't seem to affect the game much at all either physically or in terms of leadership. He immediately moved Sheaf sideways and the pair sat deep in front of the defence further isolating the forwards and restricting outlets. MR chose to put Kelly on. I cant help thinking Waghorn would have added more energy and just as much experience. Kelly is too slow physically and in thought and well past his best.
Kane wasn't in the game either. But by that time Swansea were in the ascendency, Burroughs i believe had to go off with cramp. Instead of adding to the cause the two substitutions didn't seem to add anything at all, possibly compounding the problems if anything
Everyone around us was saying we needed more energy, to play higher up the pitch, to keep hold of the ball when we got it. If we could see that you would expect the management team to see it, its their job. It didn't happen
Both substitutions were MR's choice, they didn't work. Thats not saying he is a bad manager, or hasn't and doesn't do a brilliant job. Just that on the last 30 minutes of a game we were winning 3 nil he didn't react in a way to counter the changes Swansea made. Maybe part of the problem was due to injuries and squad size, and to a degree out of MR's control. It wasn't all down to the players and inexperience on the pitch. If there are insufficient leaders on the pitch then the management team has to try to influence things more and promptly.
But that in a way does Swansea and Joe Allen in particular a disservice. They are a decent team, with quality players in depth, with plenty of experience. At 3 nil they had nothing to lose and on this occasion it worked for them. They forced play higher up the pitch. First half yes a lot of possession but mainly 30 yards from goal, second half that changed to similar possession but in our half. By the end of the match i was almost relieved we hadn't lost it. But we at least got a valuable point
I don't think the "blame" was all down to the players in the last 30 minutes. For me MR bears bears some responsibility. Does that make him a bad manager of course not, does that mean he should go because he has taken us as far as he can no thats just utter nonsense. Does that mean we cant disagree with his decisions- no and for me he got it wrong from about 65 minutes onwards. Of course up until 65 minutes he got it spot on.
As for those that booed at the end, i can understand the frustration but i dont agree with the reaction
onwards and upwards PUSB
thegoldstonewrap.com
