Bawahahaha
Game over now
Iâm sorry to say again itâs MoysehâŚ
I canât tell if WHU is more shocked or Ole
But RBL has to be thinking this is good
Heâs better when self-quarantining.
West Ham were very good in the first half and first five mins of the second half. They didnât take their chances and are being rightly punished for it. Theyâve been shite since the 50 minute mark.
How bad have West Ham been defensively since the 1st goal Ogbonna just playing them onside all the time adrift from the rest of his defence
Porridge took the early lead and looked very likely; however, oatmeal really stiffened in the second half and looked to take the cereal honors.
Yup, Ogbonna the shittest of the bunch, but their midfield disappeared this half too.
I would agree except I think shite it much too strong, as MU have been much better and also raised their game, which makes West Ham look a bit less good.
But yeah, their game was the first half and they are getting punished for lack of effectiveness, a regular problem for mid-table teams who never have strikers that can score on 50% of their chances statistically speaking.
I do however think that when you compare West Ham now, to where they were before Moyes took over, one got to say that they are much improved and far more resilient than previously overall.
Playing âwellâ means nothing unless you score. The Mancs were always likely to be better in the second half, they couldnât have been worse.
No argument that theyâre improved, but theyâve been cut open by an average United side repeatedly here. All they had to do was maintain discipline and defend properly at home, and they havenât done it. Shite.
Donât be so sour. Try to watch the match with my expert eyes. Those are telling me with Mata this side could go far in the Europa.
Note to DeGea. Donât hurry back.
Sell de Gea.
To whom?
Thereâs lots of mid-table La Liga teams would take himâŚUnited paying half his salary, of course.
Agree. Barca works.
Benrahma is brutally selfish with the ball.
But guys, consider Greenwood. He has remarkable stats when it comes to effectiveness. Circa 50%. Only Haaland and maybe a couple more are more effective than that. Now Haaland gets into positions where he gets chances much more often, scores loads more goals, and so his stats are of course much more remarkable, but the point I am trying to make is that only top, top teams have strikers that can approach anything near a 50% effectiveness.
You canât judge West Ham like you do Chelsea, Arsenal,us, City and even United. They canât compete for the most prolific strikers. And I will never agree that playing well is meaningless unless you win. A manager and a team can build on performances even in defeat.
West Ham is a midtable team, judge them like a midtable team is all I am saying.
I canât agree Magnus. We were like this for years. Weâd âplay wellâ in most matches but couldnât score, wasted big chances, and we never built on those performances. United were dire in the first half and were there for the taking. West Ham at 1-0 up should have realized that United changed their shape and play style with the half time subs and sat in, soaking up their pressure. It works every time against United, but instead they came out trying to score more and got punished for it.