- Aug 25, 2010
- 55,377
- 100,890
I think he's right tbh.
Sure, it's Villa's fault for missing all those chances, but when you allow a team to create that many decent chances against you, you have to count yourself lucky that none of them go in. If Ings is in slightly better form we'd be 2 or 3-1 down at half time. It was completely out of our control.
If we were making heroic last ditch blocks and preventing all the chances then that's good on our part - but that often wasn't the case. On at least 3 occasions we were saved by terrible finishing. Relying on terrible finishing from the opposition isn't the sign of a team in control - it requires luck.
It's essentially the opposite of the United game where we were the better team but were undone by incredible, clinical finishing. I think we were unlucky that day as 9 times out of 10 Ronaldo doesn't do that (as is clear if you've watched much of him this season - he's regularly shit).
But that's not the point I'm making.
I'm saying had they scored one of those chances it doesn't mean they would of gone on to win the game. It doesn't mean they would of continued to dominate at that stage of the game either.
We could of reacted strongly, it may have galvanised us. But Souness was implying that. There's so many variables to account for not to mention the psychology at different stages of the game.
And I don't think the United game is a great comparison but I get where you're going with that.
Yes we were the better side in that and they were clinical but I felt we were the superior side over the 90.
We were the better side over the 90 yesterday as well...not for being overly dominate...but for demonstrating devastating attacking football...as a team...not like the Ronaldo show (and banging in 30 yarders)
Were Villa unlucky not to score first half? Sure.
Doesn't mean they would of gone on to win and that's what he's implying.