LogFAQs > #904527604

ctesjbuvf posted...

I mean it sounds like what you're saying is that after playing a way that didn't let Colombia get a chance to score a goal for most of the regular, England changed to a more defensive playstyle that allowed Colombia to get chances including one that eventually lead to a goal, which seems... contradicting, unless Colombia themselves started making things work. I think I'm mostly just trying to say that Colombia didn't just start getting chances because England allowed them too, that's arrogant.

No, because you're acting like I spoke only about England's tactics. There was a huge tactical shift in the game in the final 15m. Colombia allowed more men to break forward and rather than us committing men to fast counter-attacks, we preferred to play more defensively as well, leading to a much more attacking Colombia.

My main issue here is the "making things work". It happened that way because they threw caution to the wind and played more offensively, while previously they didn't. It's just semantics I suppose but in the same way you're mistakenly calling me "arrogant", I'd say it's unfair to suggest that Colombia are a good team that, once they suddenly turned it on for 15m, we were unable to cope with. If they'd "made things work" in the way they did from the start there'd have been more goals and a far higher risk of them losing in extra time.
---

Not to be confused with XIII_Stones.