City 2 Dulwich Hamlet 2
Dec 3, 2022 20:15:46 GMT
Post by Rijs on Dec 3, 2022 20:15:46 GMT
A point gained or two lost? Given their position and playing away, the Hamlet will be happier with this result than City, a point reinforced by their time-wasting near the end, especially in the ten added minutes. As their number 3 was just off the pitch when being tended to, one wondered why the match could not be resumed sooner; certainly, City lost their momentum with this and other stoppages.
It was so different in the first half when the Hoops dominated possession. They started brightly and would have scored early had not the keeper come out smartly to smother Klaidi Lolos' effort when Zac had put him through. Thereafter City played their slow-build football which denied Dulwich the ball without threatening their goal, until Josh's longer-range shot which rattled the bar - our now customary near-miss. But the patient possession and sideways passing seemed worthwhile when Klaidi, who often seems to want the perfect opportunity before pulling the trigger, did some neat footwork in the box to create a clear chance and then tucked it away.
Unfortunately, a double error in defence gifted their tall striker Mills an early Christmas present against the run of play, and this was compounded by a moment of slack marking after a free kick at the start of the second half, which presented the Londoners with a second easy chance that was duly dispatched. Of course, they then had a lead to defend and retreated to their defensive bunkers, and for twenty minutes City appeared clueless as to how to penetrate the low block.
I think Ross is a good manager, but the one thing in which I differ from him (and I know I am not alone among City fans in this opinion) is in taking a rosy view of this, as he did again on the post-match interview when he said we played well but were just a little off the pace and a little unlucky in the final third. My view is that if what you are doing isn't working, try something different! And in particular, go more directly at opponents, use pace on the wing to get behind them and pull the ball back.
We have seen this works, and we saw it again today when City belatedly tried it. It worries defenders and creates chances, and shots on goal worry keepers. We were woefully short of them today, given how much we had the ball in and around their box, until Josh Parker came on and had two attempts within a few minutes. I just don't understand the apparent reluctance of City players to take on a defender when there is space behind and only one man to beat, as well as their reluctance to shoot when there is a gap for a moment. At times it seems that keeping possession (which we are undoubtedly good at) is the main aim of our game.
Yet we don't always play this way, and when we go for it, the fans get noisier and give more encouragement. The Shed Enders were quiet again today, and that says a lot.
As a result, Dudzinski was the busier keeper and the weaker side on paper earned their draw. But at least we didn't lose; we found a way to salvage our unbeaten home run in the end, and we proved again that, even in spite of a tendency to shoot ourselves in the foot at times, we are actually quite hard to beat!
It was so different in the first half when the Hoops dominated possession. They started brightly and would have scored early had not the keeper come out smartly to smother Klaidi Lolos' effort when Zac had put him through. Thereafter City played their slow-build football which denied Dulwich the ball without threatening their goal, until Josh's longer-range shot which rattled the bar - our now customary near-miss. But the patient possession and sideways passing seemed worthwhile when Klaidi, who often seems to want the perfect opportunity before pulling the trigger, did some neat footwork in the box to create a clear chance and then tucked it away.
Unfortunately, a double error in defence gifted their tall striker Mills an early Christmas present against the run of play, and this was compounded by a moment of slack marking after a free kick at the start of the second half, which presented the Londoners with a second easy chance that was duly dispatched. Of course, they then had a lead to defend and retreated to their defensive bunkers, and for twenty minutes City appeared clueless as to how to penetrate the low block.
I think Ross is a good manager, but the one thing in which I differ from him (and I know I am not alone among City fans in this opinion) is in taking a rosy view of this, as he did again on the post-match interview when he said we played well but were just a little off the pace and a little unlucky in the final third. My view is that if what you are doing isn't working, try something different! And in particular, go more directly at opponents, use pace on the wing to get behind them and pull the ball back.
We have seen this works, and we saw it again today when City belatedly tried it. It worries defenders and creates chances, and shots on goal worry keepers. We were woefully short of them today, given how much we had the ball in and around their box, until Josh Parker came on and had two attempts within a few minutes. I just don't understand the apparent reluctance of City players to take on a defender when there is space behind and only one man to beat, as well as their reluctance to shoot when there is a gap for a moment. At times it seems that keeping possession (which we are undoubtedly good at) is the main aim of our game.
Yet we don't always play this way, and when we go for it, the fans get noisier and give more encouragement. The Shed Enders were quiet again today, and that says a lot.
As a result, Dudzinski was the busier keeper and the weaker side on paper earned their draw. But at least we didn't lose; we found a way to salvage our unbeaten home run in the end, and we proved again that, even in spite of a tendency to shoot ourselves in the foot at times, we are actually quite hard to beat!