Could it be that maybe the change in play after the two goals was a deliberate (and I agree, bad) decision to save energy in a busy week? I mean, the contrast was so immediate and so instantaneous. It was go go go for 10 minutes, and then basically no attempts to get it into the attack third until Bay scored the equalizer.
Could it be that maybe the change in play after the two goals was a deliberate (and I agree, bad) decision to save energy in a busy week? I mean, the contrast was so immediate and so instantaneous. It was go go go for 10 minutes, and then basically no attempts to get it into the attack third until Bay scored the equalizer.
I'm sure it was intentional to an extent, but both teams were on a short week and both were heavily rotated. If they had done it in the second half instead of after ten minutes, it would have been more understandable. Also, you actually expend more energy when you don't have the ball than when you do, so it would have been nice to see them take advantage Bay's youngsters in the first half and just possess a little even if they didn't press.
Could it be that maybe the change in play after the two goals was a deliberate (and I agree, bad) decision to save energy in a busy week? I mean, the contrast was so immediate and so instantaneous. It was go go go for 10 minutes, and then basically no attempts to get it into the attack third until Bay scored the equalizer.
I'm sure it was intentional to an extent, but both teams were on a short week and both were heavily rotated. If they had done it in the second half instead of after ten minutes, it would have been more understandable. Also, you actually expend more energy when you don't have the ball than when you do, so it would have been nice to see them take advantage Bay's youngsters in the first half and just possess a little even if they didn't press.