Well, my reply to that would be that it’s only half time in the Pererborough tie really and Solihull only lost on penalties. I started the thread to ask a question as to why Peterborough clearly place a lot of emphasis on attacking play, to the detriment of their team you could say, and why Solihull seem to place such an emphasis on a passing game at a level where the temptation must be to be physical and lump it forewarn like we did for much of the last decade?Originally Posted by Don Corleone
This time last year, Peterborough were 4-0 up after the first leg of their Play Off Semi Final, yet still lost. I can remember thinking that the tie was not quite over because Peterborough are the sort of team they are - on the other hand, despite what happened at Peterborough all those years ago, I’d always back City to see out a two leg tie where they were four goals up from the first leg - our problem of course is that we’d never get four goals clear in the first place!
Whereas a Peterborough, and plenty of other teams in the 92, would go looking for third, a fourth or a fifth goal when they went 2-0 up, City are far more concerned with holding on to what they have - in fact, our attitude changes markedly when we go one up, why should this be?
Eric produced an incredible stat a while back about us only having scored five goals or more in a league game once in the last decade (ironically against a Rotherham team on their way to relegation). Do we struggle to sign quality strikers because we don’t do enough attacking and we place more emphasis on work rate and tracking back or do we, in fact, sign good strikers, but we’re set up in a way that makes it a lot harder for them to prosper?
Reply With Quote