They got ridiculously lucky and we also made them look good (and our own defence awful) by once again giving the ball away via horrible passing in transition and an inability to deal with pressure. Yet despite that we still played some good football and created great chances. But you have to take your chances or you can't complain. Actually... Strebre you muppet -- Popovic old Musky school of dirt meets I let everything go Debrovski - oh what fun for a small possession minded team...
Mc Breen looked disinterested and flat last game and should not have started today, as he unfortunately dished up more of the same.
A striker needs edge, passion and balls. McBreen had it last season. Now he is anticipating nothing, moving slowly, and pouting too much for my liking.
You need no further proof than that virtually every game last season he would be permanently riding the edge of a yellow... He barely even challenged for the ball today, let alone looked body and soul committed. Did he even foul anyone? Regardless of or attacking play, he looked highly unlikely to score. I love Danny, but the fact Duke was kept on the bench by him tonight was a travesty. He looked more dangerous in the box than the rest of our team put together. Very sorry he wasn't on the field when we were creating all of our chances.
Moss... I refuse to rag on our new coach. But tonight worried me. Starting Macca, then chasing a game 2 nil, we have seven defensive players on, and you take Flores off at 60... leaving MCbreen and two DM's on. Flores is a player who may at last find some space in the last 20 minutes of such games. He can also - even while having a shocker - change a game in a moment. Ineffective you say? If he had more attacking players creating meaningful movement in front of him he'd be killing it. Instead (who was it who asked why we keep playing it pointlessly to Flores under pressure?) because we have two non ball playing DM's that you can't trust to beat a man or hold the ball when under serious pressure behind him - we predictably play it longer to Flores, who now has two players running at his back and he's forced to play like a number 9 in the middle of the bloody park. (Happened to weemac several times too) Horrible to watch. And next people will start complaining about Flores being over rated etc...
Then at 75, still chasing 2 nil, it's again an attacking player for attacking player... and sadly in referring to Matty S, I now use the term "attacking player" loosely.
What on Earth did the Koreans do to him? He looks nothing like a striker anymore. In fact what he looks exactly like is a centre back. But at the wrong bloody end.
I don't think Arnie would ever have made the subs Mossy did today. He knew how to chase a game. He knew when players were under performing. He knew when players were down on luck but needed backing. Tonight made me fear Mossy just doesn't trust himself yet or is missing some elements that will make him a successful coach for us.
Lastly, maybe I'm misreading and full of shit on this one, but it looked to me like he was ok with our two nil loss, perhaps even happy it wasn't worse.
Trents worst game in yellow for a long time. Also whinging all the time?? WEIRD. He's usually so composed. It worries me.
We do have the tools. It clearly still shows in patches. But there are key things that need to change. And reportedly Mossy is focusing on our defensive shape - which will unfortunately always be shit if you keep giving the ball away while everyone is out of position... and you will keep giving it away if the passing and movement is poor... and so you can't hold onto the ball when under pressure... which is only going to get a shit load harder without Weemac... The best way to get into the Mariners back third, is kick it to our backs and chase... And of course then there's our other, arguably biggest problem... putting the ball in the net.
Let's hope he can turn some of it around.
Oh and... Fox WSW fapfest makes me want to
And WSW support.... So big. So loud. And so entirely fixated on their own navels.
Honestly. Who do we sing for...? Response should be "we sing for ourselves"