ted Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 ^ "Naive"? That, to me, implies we were schooled, soundly beaten, out of our depth. The game I watched was close loss where we were punished by quality finishing from them and a couple of unlucky bounces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearcatSA Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 7 minutes ago, ted said: ^ "Naive"? That, to me, implies we were schooled, soundly beaten, out of our depth. The game I watched was close loss where we were punished by quality finishing from them and a couple of unlucky bounces. plus some a couple of key misses by our strikers in excellent scoring positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyslexic nam Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 I think it was naive insofar as some pre-game coaching decisions could have led to a different outcome. Bernier's absence meant that we opted for a more offensive midfield. Not blaming Tiebert, but the QF is not the time to start trying to swahbuckle your way through the tournament. Lots of folks were leery of that decision before a ball was kicked. Cav's absence meant that we weren't pressing them high, which could have contained the counter - which is how they got us. James was the fasted CB on our roster, and not starting him was a risk against a fast counter-attacking team. The fact is that the first two decisions were both immediately questioned on here during pre-game as being risky, and both seemed to be mistakes once the game got into full swing. To me, that puts some of the blame on OZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.