Originally Posted by
IBK
It's an interesting concept as to whether Manure were 'diffcult' to play against. In a sense I agree that they were 'pathetic' for all bar the first 10 minutes in terms of playing football. We controlled the game and they were forced into getting everyone back and defending - but they did that well, and were disciplined in this. What they were however was really smart. They adapted well to our tactics (their manager would have anticipated our high line from the outset), and realising that they could not go toe to toe with us in terms of general game control, they quickly realised that we were vulnerable to a long ball down the middle. You can be generally effective as you want in terms of stopping the delivery route in this regard, but even Citeh cannot do this 100% (as their result at Villa showed), and we certainly failed to do this in the key moments. 'Pathetic' as they might have been for long periods, they have the likes of Erikson; Fernandes and Rashford who can kill you in this regard if given half a chance. Disagree with you re their player ratings BTW - Rashford and Erikson were good in this game. You only need to win the key moments, not the 90 minutes, and we need to up our game in this regard against the top teams.
Re 'the' foul - I agree that ths was probably one (albeit soft). I do take issue with whether VAR should have revisited this when it was not blown for at the time - and like so many others, for me the maddening thing is both the reversal of these types of real time marginal decisions well away from the goalmouth (that VAR was never intended to do), and the huge inconsistency that has seen other goals stand in similar circumstances. Make no mistake - Ten Hag realised that their best bet was to give us the freedom of the pitch and hit us on the counter - and had our goal stood this tactic would have been shredded to our advantage. Manure got the breaks as they always seem to do against us.
Was it naive to play so far up the pitch? Perhaps, but for me not as egregious as it might immediately seem. This is how Arteta wants to play, and it will leave counter attacking opportunities. Again, the answer for me is not to alter our game plan and therefore invite the opposition onto a defence that can often be less than perfect - but to ensure that our tactic is effective by not having to have 5 clear chances to score one goal. Arteta seems to understand this - hence his wish for more firepower. It is unfortunate that this aim appears to have been scuppered by our CM injuries that changed the emphasis to chasing a midfielder at the last minute - which was unsuccessful. What was naive was to get carried away both by the game state where we were dominating the opposition, and by the desire to get back into the game (the triple sub encapsulated this).
Now the contentious point. Their goals were not, IMO principally due to Granit Xhaka. IMO these were generally down to team issues, not individuals. But if you want to single out individuals, Martinelli regularly failed to track his man and this was the starting issue for one of their goals; Lokonga was average off the ball and the same could be said of him for another; and Gabriel M did not have a great game and the Central Defenders (and Zinchenko) were too loose. Xhaka suffers from confirmation bias too much for me - but that's another story and I know we will have to agree to disagree on this one.