There's a phrase we don't hear very often!jbc.shrimp wrote:Down to 9th !!!!!!???????
There's a phrase we don't hear very often!jbc.shrimp wrote:Down to 9th !!!!!!???????
jbc.shrimp wrote:Down to 9th !!!!!!???????
jbc.shrimp wrote:Keith wrote:Always a dangerous game, playing deep for a 0-0. We probably deserved a draw and possibly even could have gone ahead, but we can't really argue, we were too negative.
Were we playing for a 0-0 draw ?????
Keith wrote:jbc.shrimp wrote:Keith wrote:Always a dangerous game, playing deep for a 0-0. We probably deserved a draw and possibly even could have gone ahead, but we can't really argue, we were too negative.
Were we playing for a 0-0 draw ?????
Didn't you think so? Stockton off for Diagouraga was a clear indication that not conceding was more important than scoring.
They were lucky to win, but we didn't deserve to win. A 0-0 would have been acceptable and we may have snatched something but really, aiming for a goalless draw is always dangerous.
Little Shrimp wrote:Definitely weren't playing for a 0-0 draw. My impression was to get to 0-0 at HT (which we did), then come out with a bit more in the second half (which we did)... ...I think the Stockton sub did show that DA was looking to take the point, but this was only with 10 mins left. I'm not sure I agree with us going striker-less but I don't think this indicated we played for a 0-0 draw overall.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 64 guests