Anyone be bothered to break this one down tactically yet? Think I'm gonna need a bit more time before I'm able to watch any of this game back.
To me it seemed like Brighton were a completely new team after the break, as were we. Hurzeler brought on Estupinian but that can't have been it, there must have been some tactical adjustments on their behalf to swing the game that significantly.
As for us, well, we only play one way. No changes until minute 78, at which point Ange brings on two DMs when we're in need of a goal. Have to say I was scratching my head at his in-game decision making, and not for the first time.
Though, that's also what can happen when you start two #10s in midfield: (1) it can leave you fairly open in the middle, and (2) you've nobody left to bring on when in need of an attacking change (except poor Mikey, who's too young to really rely on to make a difference).
It's worth saying we hardly blew them away in the first half. We were decent, but the xG was roughly 0.65-0.9. I suspect there were some signs of what was to come in that second half. Maddison got absolutely done in midfield at one point which lead to that huge chance for Welbeck, & it gave me strong flashbacks of Newcastle's second.
Also it seemed to me they benefitted from Webster going off early on. We had been getting in behind their high line at will. Would need to watch it back but I'd be interested to see if they changed anything there in the second half, I don't recall getting in behind once.
Here's how Understat has it:
To me it seemed like Brighton were a completely new team after the break, as were we. Hurzeler brought on Estupinian but that can't have been it, there must have been some tactical adjustments on their behalf to swing the game that significantly.
As for us, well, we only play one way. No changes until minute 78, at which point Ange brings on two DMs when we're in need of a goal. Have to say I was scratching my head at his in-game decision making, and not for the first time.
Though, that's also what can happen when you start two #10s in midfield: (1) it can leave you fairly open in the middle, and (2) you've nobody left to bring on when in need of an attacking change (except poor Mikey, who's too young to really rely on to make a difference).
It's worth saying we hardly blew them away in the first half. We were decent, but the xG was roughly 0.65-0.9. I suspect there were some signs of what was to come in that second half. Maddison got absolutely done in midfield at one point which lead to that huge chance for Welbeck, & it gave me strong flashbacks of Newcastle's second.
Also it seemed to me they benefitted from Webster going off early on. We had been getting in behind their high line at will. Would need to watch it back but I'd be interested to see if they changed anything there in the second half, I don't recall getting in behind once.
Here's how Understat has it:
