That's exactly what the process would look like. And there's very likely to be more of it.
Liew is a Spurs fan as well. Bizarre.
Before villas second, the previous 5 goals we'd conceded had all come in stoppage time.
All 5 of those goals were conceded in the absence of Romero + VDV (i.e. both starting CBs) and Sarr + Maddison (i.e. starting CMs who are key to us sustaining our high press that usually minimises the pressure on our defence). Bissouma was also missing for 3 of those 5 goals and Udogie was missing for the other 2 (i.e. at least 5 of our starting 11 missing for all 5 goals). We didn't have two recognised CBs on the pitch for any of those goals.
We conceded late under Jose because we sat deep and then, understandably, made more mistakes at the end of games when we were tired than we did during the earlier periods when our defence was fresher.
Having so many injuries means that Ange doesn't have the squad players to bring in on 60 minutes when the starters are tiring from the all out approach we take and as a result they fatigue and become prone to injury.All 5 of those goals were conceded in the absence of Romero + VDV (i.e. both starting CBs) and Sarr + Maddison (i.e. starting CMs who are key to us sustaining our high press that usually minimises the pressure on our defence). Bissouma was also missing for 3 of those 5 goals and Udogie was missing for the other 2 (i.e. at least 5 of our starting 11 missing for all 5 goals). We didn't have two recognised CBs on the pitch for any of those goals.
Our system and style of play was criticised, with it implied that this was the cause of our recent poor results. This point was made without any mention of us being without numerous key players, despite the downturn in results (and the increase in late goals conceded) strongly correlating to the absence of these players. It wasn't suggested that Ange needs to temporarily adjust his tactics for the duration of this crisis, but that his tactics aren't viable in general - even though these tactics had us out-performing Man City before our fairly unprecedented injury/suspension crisis. I'm not sure whether to call this lazy, ignorant, naïve or biased...perhaps it's all of them.
A disproportionate amount of goals are scored late throughout professional football. Perhaps our make-shift defence, that was also lacking the protection that our high-press has previously provided, deserved praise for holding out until stoppage time, rather than criticism for failing to buck the trend of all football teams ever.
We conceded late under Jose because we sat deep and then, understandably, made more mistakes at the end of games when we were tired than we did during the earlier periods when our defence was fresher.
We have conceded late under Ange because we've had a make-shift defence on the pitch and then, understandably, have made more mistakes at the end of games when we were tired than we did during the earlier periods when our defence was fresher.
Same outcome but two different causations.
The SSN pundit in question suggested that we need to sit deeper, yet this could actually compound the issue, as our make-shift defence would be under the same barrage of pressure that we failed to cope with under Jose. Would we really concede fewer late goals if both of the above causations were stacked rather than us only having one of the two to contend with?
How many of our injured players have been regularly playing a full 90 minutes?
www.theguardian.com
