• Astrealix@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I mean, yes, we didn’t attack much, but we had the best chances of the game throughout and our attacks were fluid, we just ran at them and sent long balls more than passing cuz they weren’t good in the air

      • Astrealix@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I dunno. Stats are stats, felt like we were attacking more and with more threat than them watching the game

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              At the end, especially in extra time, that was definitely the case. And, it’s true that they didn’t manage many real attacks. OTOH Arsenal couldn’t break out of that horseshoe either. The XG graphs suggest that even though they weren’t getting a lot of high quality chances, they were getting enough low quality chances continuously throughout the game that a breakthrough eventually was expected. Meanwhile, Havertz scored on an extremely low XG chance. That was Arsenal’s only shot on target all game. There was also one miss, and 5 blocked shots. That’s it for 120 minutes, and includes the attempts from set pieces too.

              120 minutes and 1 shot on target is pretty poor.