Weststander
Well-known member
Their comments after the Palace game were such obvious after timing that it made you wonder what the point of them was. A more apt analysis would have been based on our inability to put away the chances that we made and our inability to stop a fairly simple long ball attack. Palace did defend well, but if they had defended as well as Shearer & Jenas suggested they did, we wouldn't have had the chances that Maupay and March missed. Had those, or the Dunk chance that Maupay blocked gone in, their analysis would have been all about Hodgson's negative tactics and how it is a limited strategy in today's Premier League. Pundits' comments seem entirely based on cherry picking match incidents to prove a narrative that has been decided upon after the result becomes apparent. They are absolutely stealing a living.
That's one reason why I never watch highlights of a loss.
Pundits fitting evidence around their final result driven conclusion.
Especially bores such as Jenas and Shearer.