Chances created (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yep. Wondering about that myself.
Was it because he was missing? Or did we just get it right last night and if Armstrong had have been playing he would have bagged a hatful?
Not sure which answer is correct.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Agree otis. As well as we played in the 35 mins, a lot of that was down to how shockingly bad Peterborough were. It was telling that as soon as they threw on the sub and changed their system on 35 minutes we lost control of the game.
Had arnsrtrong been playing in that first 35 we'd have been 2-3 up
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
tisza
Well-Known Member
yep. what was just as disappointing that when Peterborough changed their system and pressed the back 4 in particular we didn't change what we were doing.
2 key issues were backing off when they ran at us and even worse was the passing in defensive areas. far too often were passes in defensive areas that were putting our players under pressure and costing us the ball. why play Fortune and bring on Henderson if you're not going to knock it long to relieve the pressure?
too often recently we seem to be want to be known as a passing side etc. rather being a practical side.
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
They were able to run at us because the man who stops that happening most weeks was playing at centre half