Match Ratings Ratings vs Burnley

[SlotBadger]

Man of the Match: Joe Hart.

Why? Because this clown got everything he deserved for taking nearly 30-60 seconds for each goal kick and then miraculously (clue: it was after he'd conceded) learning how to sprint to place the ball and take his subsequent kicks. ****.

 

[Shadydan]

Sorry been away.
Anyway to answer your question.
Not many whole games
though we have played well at times.

Playing poorly is not a winning strategy
or likely to enthuse fans.
No team plays badly by design
but sometimes you can be thwarted
by the opposition tactics
or lady luck.
Bus parkers and Burnley come to mind.
even though you play quite well.

My contention is that over a lengthy period
38 games will suffice
you will win some games playing badly
and lose some games playing well
But in the long term
and 17 games is not enough in my view
(which is where you have moved the goalposts
or cut them down to 4ft)
you win more game playing well than playing badly.

Sometimes good teams playing well
lose.
Sometimes poor teams win.
The better the players
and the manager and his tactics
the more likely you are to win.
Man Utd have some very good players
but they are not always selected (Pogba)
and Mourinho depresses everyone's performance
and they lose.

Playing well is always the key
to doing well over the long term
though short term you can get away with it
if as you say you are winning.
But the fans,
Tottenham fans anyway
won't go along with it for long

Playing well and poorly need defining
short and long term need defining.

Cheers

On the balance of matches 2 games in which we played well in our of 17 kind of justifies my point.

No one plays badly by design, it's not a strategy but if you're still picking up points whilst you're not a the top of your game it's certainly not a bad thing.