I watched a recording of the game yesterday and thought West Ham played quite well, particularly in the first half. They obviously picked a tactic of trying to stop silva and De Bruyne getting the ball and were pretty effective in achieving that. Instead of getting tight to both of them they closed down passing lanes and dropped a yard off. The consequence of this was Sterling in particular saw little of the ball. I think this coupled with a drop off in our passing out of defence caused what we saw in th3 first half. In the second, they couldn’t keep the work rate up and gabby made a big difference. Other than the time wasting, I thought West Ham made a decent fist of it and certainly played more than Huddersfield and Southampton.
I agree. They looked a threat when they did venture out and cut out supply lines well.
Don't think they'd have been half the threat had Stones played.
I don't blame them for coming for a point and defending for their lives. And I don't therefore feel animosity.I don't get all of the animosity towards teams who turn up with no intention to attack and put 11 men behind the ball.
The less they attack, the more clean sheets we'll have and we have the quality to score past anyone.
I don't blame them for coming for a point and defending for their lives. And I don't therefore feel animosity.
But it is nevertheless, regrettable. Your comments overlook the fact that (a) the games are not as exciting (nor imo interesting) and (b) our GD is better served by winning 5-2 than it is by 1-0 or 2-1. It may be 3 points all the same, but the 5-2 type result is preferable on several levels.