demportdave":1uuvuyrf said:Biggs":1uuvuyrf said:UTL, you’re getting cause mixed up with correlation.
Just because something happened after something else, doesn’t mean the first event caused it. Just that they both happened.
If we’d conceded that late goal with (an injured?) Fox still on the pitch, we’d have been seeing the same posts bemoaning the lack of a defensive sub to shut up shop.
I would obviously have liked us to keep attacking and score a third, but that’s not what happens most of the time and even the most positive managers make defensive subs to close out a game.
Why do we sit so deep, giving our opponents so much time and space which allows them to build attack after attack?
It is so obvious that we are trying to hang on that it just encourages the opposition to pile forwards because we do not carry any meaningful goal threat ourselves.
Maybe because we’re better at defending en-masse in the box than we are dealing with the inevitable balls over the top into the space left if we pushed up. It didn’t work yesterday but hindsight is the most accurate of sciences.